we will go hold on a second. we will go throu~h hold on a second. we will go through sectors _ hold on a second. we will go through sectors one, - hold on a second. we will go through sectors one, two, i through sectors one, two, three. _ through sectors one, two, three. four, _ through sectors one, two, three, four, and _ through sectors one, two, three, four, and five, - through sectors one, two, \ three, four, and five, 0k? let's — three, four, and five, 0k? let's start_ three, four, and five, 0k? let's start with _ three, four, and five, 0k? let's start with the - three, four, and five, 0k? let's start with the left - let's start with the left secton _ sector. - translationz sector. translation: �* , translation: let's give the floor to the _ translation: let's give the floor to the young _ translation: let's give the floor to the young lady. - floor to the young lady. translate mac sky news arabia, the uae, moscow bureau —— there is reporting... studio: you have been watching a news conference with vladimir putin, the russian leader, in kazan, where they have been staging the brics summit, the emerging nations brazil, russia, india, china and several other emerging nations who have been gathering for that summit will this was quite a rare news conference with vladimir putin,

amongst others, our own bbc rush editor steve rosenberg was able to ask him a question about the war in ukraine, asking vladimir putin how he justified that war when it had brought rocket attacks and drone attacks on russian territory. also, interestingly, he was asked about the presence of north korean troops in the russia ukraine war and russian president vladimir putin said that it was moscow cosmic business how to implement a partnership treaty with north korea, but he did not actually deny the north korean troops are currently in russia, preparing to fight against ukraine. he said it was not russia's actions that had excluded the war in ukraine, he pointed to western supplies of weapons to ukraine. he was also asked about his relationship with donald trump, former president and republican contender. he said that russia

welcomes donald trump's statements that he seeks to end the conflict in ukraine and if the conflict in ukraine and if the united states is open to normal relations with russia, then russia will be open to those normal relations as well. that's what mr putin said. so, thatis that's what mr putin said. so, that is the result of that news conference in kazan, and we will be listening out for any more details coming from the russian leader vladimir putin, who has been enjoying himself at that summit. he has been centrestage with those other leaders from place like india, china and so on, and alternative summit, if you like, of nations, emerging nations, such as brazil, india, china, south africa and so on.

here in the united kingdom, the chancellor of the exchequer, rachel reeves, has confirmed that the way the uk measures its debt is to be altered, to allow the government to borrow more money. speaking at a meeting of the international monetary fund in washington, she said the change to the self imposed rules would form part of next week's budget and would pay for greater investment, to help grow the economy. she has been speaking to our economics editor faisal islam. we will be changing the measure of debt. i'll set out the details of that to the house of commons next week, but i've listened to the imf — i'm at the annual meetings this week — who have been clear that we do need to free up more money to invest in capital, as well as listening to people like gus o'donnell, mark carney, andy haldane and jim o'neill, who are all saying that we need to invest more to grow our economy and sees the huge opportunities there are in digital, in tech, in life sciences, in clean energy, but we'll only be able to do that if we change the way that we measure debt.

rachel reeves, talking about changing the way we measure debt. what exactly does that mean? i have been talking to our chief political correspondent henry zeffman and asked him to explain more about the significance of what rachel reeves has been saying. the government will retain rules about essentially reducing debt and not using borrowing to fund day—to—day spending. but what exactly they mean by debt will change. now, i'm not sure this actually is going to mean translating it into basic english, but what they are going to do is incorporate more financial assets into that measure of debt. so they're going to include the student loan book, they're going to include share stakes in companies, and ultimately what this all tells you, what this measure — public sector net financial liabilities, which is the full wordy phrase for it — tells you, is that in the run up to this budget, money is tight. and rachel reeves, the relatively new chancellor, is eager to give herself more room to invest in public services. people reckon that this ostensibly

subtle tweak will free up about £50 billion more for the government to spend. i don't think they're going to spend it all at once in this budget, but itjust eases some of the pressure, as the chancellor makes what she keeps calling difficult decisions. so it's quite a handy accountancy measure, ina sense? undeniably. but i think there's also an economic argument here that the government wants to make and hopes to win. and it's about the necessity, as they see it and as they argue, you heard a bit from rachel reeves there — the necessity, as they see it, of borrowing in order to invest. i mean, borrowing has been such a dirty word, hasn't it, for so long in british politics, probably back since the financial crisis? and rachel reeves is going to try to advance an argument that, in the past, some even in her party have been uneasy about — that borrowing can be good if it entails investing in public services, investing in the public realm. and there is a clear political fault line

on this already emerging. we've just had through a response from jeremy hunt — of course, rachel reeves's predecessor as chancellor, but still also, for at least another ten days or so, the shadow chancellor — and he said this, "let me be clear, the advice i received consistently whilst chancellor was that any additional borrowing would mean higher interest rates for longer," so that is the argument coming into view. labour, the government, saying that borrowing is worth it in order to invest in the state. jeremy hunt saying that any borrowing, or any extra borrowing, i should say, is bad because it will mean higher interest rates. that is henry zeffman, r mackey chief political correspondent, and just let you know that that interview that rachel reeves give to our economics editor faisal islam, you can see that in full in about 20 minutes' time. the united nations has warned that world temperatures are on track to rise by up to 3.1 degrees above pre—industrial levels, a figure it calls catastrophic.

countries pledged in 2015 to try to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. the warning comes ahead of this year's un cop 29 talks in fossil fuel—rich azerbaijan. the un secretary—general, antonio guterres, has said the world is already paying a terrible price because of climate change. 0ur climate correspondent matt mcgrath gave us the latest. the un emissions hap report is in its 15th year. —— the un emissions gap report is in its 15th year. it highlights the difference between where the world needs to be to keep temperatures underthat1.5 and under two degrees, as agreed at the paris agreement, and where we really are, and what we've seen in the last year, in 2023, is a tick up in those emissions. emissions rose globally by about 1.3%. doesn't sound like a lot, but compared to the previous decade, it's considerably more. and what's happened in that last year is we've seen people returning to the skies. we've seen people taking to aeroplanes, flying. aviation has increased. we've seen people using their cars more. and we've seen industry ramp up its use of carbon as well.

taken all together, the un environment programme says we're well off track now for the paris agreement, and we'll need a herculean effort to bring those emissions down over the next ten years or so to where they need to be, to keep those temperature thresholds in sight. a lot of pressure, then, on the next cop summit to come up with some sort of new action plan, i suppose? absolutely. as there is with every cop, and there's a number of factors here which are actually complicating the picture in some degrees. as well as people using their cars more and flying more, other things are happening, like the impacts of climate change. the impacts of climate change are making the world warmer. people are using more air conditioning. it's also having an impact on hydropower. we're having less of that. and also the fact that we're trying to transition away, use more electric cars, that's pushing up demand for electricity as well. some of it met by coal. so it's a very complex picture and very difficult for the political leaders who come together in baku next month to be able to solve it. the key focus for them there will be to try and find the money, because the money will be the key that will unlock this

whole problem in many respects, and that is the key focus of this particular meeting there. if they can put enough money on the table from the richer countries to help the poorer countries to transition away from fossil fuels and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, that would be a big step forward. but at this moment in time, there's predictably no sense of agreement around that. matt mcgrath reporting. commonwealth leaders are preparing to defy the uk at their summit by agreeing to look at ways of getting financial compensation for the trans atlantic slave trade. it is all developing at the meeting of the commonwealth heads of nations meeting in samoa. the british prime minister sir keir starmer says the issue is not on the agenda. king charles and queen camilla are present for the commonwealth heads of government meeting. the couple will complete a day of engagements before meeting with commonwealth leaders at the end of the week. just a bit of context for you — the commonwealth of nations, often just known as the commonwealth, is

an international group of 56 member states, mostly former territories of the british empire from which it developed. british governments of the past, and members of the royal family, participated in the slave trade over several centuries alongside other european nations — it saw millions of africans transported around the world to work on slave plantations in the united states and the caribbean. in recent times, there have been calls for reparations, potentially worth billions of pounds, maybe even trillions of pounds, or at least a symbolic apology. those calls have been rejected by current and former uk governments. the british labour party mp clive lewis, who's a descendant of enslaved people and a campaigner for reparatoryjustice for the caribbean, has been explaining what's being asked from some of these commonwealth countries. caribbean countries in particular have been driving this — caricom in particular. they have a ten—point plan. and first on that

plan is an apology. now, there's no court in the world that is going to make britain pay up, and i don't think anyone expects britain to be caught in some kind of legal trap, if it enters into an apology and a conversation, a national conversation, about where structural racism comes from, about these countries — many of whom are in deep debt, facing a climate crisis... they're in debt because when britain gave them their independence and left them, it left them with absolutely nothing. that debt was to build basic infrastructure across the caribbean — education, roads, airports, ports. they had to borrow. that's why they're so much in debt now. we talk about being a country that believes in social and economicjustice, in fairness, injustice. well, i think it's imperative that if we want to play our part in making sure that we do our bit for countries that have given so much to this country, that have helped build the wealth of this country, then is it not right that we do something to help them? it doesn't have to break the bank, it doesn't have to break the country, it can be over a long period

of time, but when we think about what we've taken from these countries — and continue to take — what those countries are saying is, it's time for britain, the sixth richest country in the world, to do something to help us. that was clive lewis, talking to me earlier on. joining me now is sir mark lyall grant, who was the uk's ambassador to the un and was previously the foreign and commonwealth office's africa director. amongst many other posts he held. thank you so much for being with us for some what do you think? the question is, should britain and other european nations b, a, apologising for the slave trade and, b, paying a lot of money to say sorry? j and, b, paying a lot of money to say sorry?— to say sorry? i don't think so. look, i to say sorry? i don't think so. look. i don't— to say sorry? i don't think so. look, i don't think _ to say sorry? i don't think so. look, i don't think it's - look, i don't think it's appropriate in principle to be paying reparations for something that this country and many other countries did more than 200 years ago. i think that's wrong in principle. even before you come to the difficult questions about why

the united kingdom, when the united kingdom was actually one of the first countries to abolish slavery, led the world in abolition of the slave trade and, indeed, use a lot of money and, indeed, use a lot of money and resource in imposing the abolition of the slave trade. then you got a question about, who do you pay the reparations tuck? is it to the countries in west africa, from which slaves were taken across the atlantic to the caribbean and to america, or is it to the caribbean countries, and indeed the united states, which was the united states, which was the destination for many of the slaves from africa? 0r the destination for many of the slaves from africa? or is it, as david lemi suggested some years ago, to the descendents of the windrush generation, ie british nationals? i think there's a lot of difficult issues, even before you come to the question of how much money is appropriate, sol the question of how much money is appropriate, so i think the government, british government is right not to go down this road, even to the extent of

resisting calls for an apology. i know we're in an era these days where it's become the norm to apologise for things for which you are not responsible, but it seems to me to apologise for something that happened ten generations ago, 200 years ago, doesn't make much sense, and also it creates the sort of ratchet effect that this year and apology, and extra financial compensation or reparations.— financial compensation or rearations. . , reparations. what clive lewis was saying. _ reparations. what clive lewis was saying. you _ reparations. what clive lewis was saying, you say - reparations. what clive lewis was saying, you say 200 - reparations. what clive lewis| was saying, you say 200 years ago, but clive lewis was saying, his argument is, these countries that a been affected are poorer today because of what happened with the slave trade generations ago, as you say, and that britain is richer today because of what happened all those centuries ago, as he was saying, the sixth richest nation on earth, so in a sense, it is a question for today — it's not something thatjust belongs to the past. the it's not something that 'ust belongs to the past. the second is true, belongs to the past. the second is true. that _ belongs to the past. the second is true, that britain _ belongs to the past. the second

is true, that britain is _ belongs to the past. the second is true, that britain is richer - is true, that britain is richer today partly because of the slave trade stop were many other factors as well. i don't think it is true that those countries are poorer because of their involvement in slavery, many years ago, but i think clive lewis and others are conflating two different things. i would absolutely agree with him that britain should be prepared to use its development programme, use its wealth in order to help poorer countries, critically those of the commonwealth with whom we have a specific type, to develop themselves, whether that's in dealing with climate change or the debt problem or education, i'm all in favour of that, but linking it to something that happened more than 200 years ago makes no sense at all to me. but than 200 years ago makes no sense at all to me.— sense at all to me. but when ou sa sense at all to me. but when you say we — sense at all to me. but when you say we should _ sense at all to me. but when you say we should not - sense at all to me. but when you say we should not even i you say we should not even apologise, surely an apology would not cost anything, or is your argument that we as a country would be opening ourselves up to liability for massive compensation bills, so

we can't even say sorry? that is, i we can't even say sorry? that is, i think. — we can't even say sorry? that is, i think, the _ we can't even say sorry? that is, i think, the diplomatic - is, i think, the diplomatic risk, if you like, that the government will be thinking about — that if you start apologising, it sounds as though you are in some way responsible, you the british government of today, and then inevitably that will not be enough and many people will call for compensation, just as if you suggested, 0k, £100 million of compensation from many people would say, that's not enough. others would say, it's an insult to consider all descendents of slavery to be victims that have to be compensated, so this is a very complicated issue, buti compensated, so this is a very complicated issue, but i think from a political point of view, from a political point of view, from a political point of view, from a diplomatic point of view, starting down that slippery slope is very dangerous for the government. sir mark lyall grant, very good to talk to you, thank you so much for being with us on bbc news. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. we will be back in a moment.

the serial killer lucy letby has been denied permission to appeal against her most recent conviction for the attempted murder of a new born baby while working as a nurse. she received herfifteenth whole life sentence following a retrial injuly, after the jury in her original trial last year couldn't reach a verdict. letby�*s lawyers had argued the retrial shouldn't have gone ahead because of "overwhelming prejudice" caused by media coverage of the original trial. our home and legal correspondent dominic casciani sent this update from the court of appeal. today's hearing at the court of appeal solely came down to the question of lucy letby�*s 15th and final conviction for attempted murder of a baby known only as child k. that conviction came injuly this year. it was a retrial because the jury in the original prosecution could not decide what had happened.

now, the case against her was that child k had been attacked about 90 minutes after she had been born in the countess of chester hospital in february 2016. it was said that lucy letby had dislodged her feeding tube and stood over the cot doing nothing as the baby struggled. and the baby was only brought back into a form of stability because a consultant by chance walked in and saw what was going on. now, that conviction came after three and a half hours when the jury accepted the prosecution's evidence. but lucy letby�*s lawyers today said that that case had effectively been prejudiced, it had been influenced by the previous reporting of her main convictions from august 2023. they said, effectively, the weight of all the reporting and the vitriolic comments around it had been particularly damaging to lucy letby�*s right to a fair trial and that amounted to what is

known in the legaljargon as an abuse of process and that the trialjudge should have intervened and said, "lucy letby cannot have a fair trial, i need to stop this case." in particular, benjamin myers for lucy letby said that comments from the police had been deeply problematic, because they revealed contacts with other children, and in that context, the police should have thought twice about the prejudice that would have had on the forthcoming case. the judges today rejected that, saying there was no prejudice because a very experienced trialjudge had followed the process and made sure everything was fair and therefore the appeal should not be granted. throughout all of this, lucy letby sat on a video link from hmp bronzefield, the largest women's prison, she sat impassively and watched what was going on.

she looked very tired and said very little, only to confirm she understood what was going on, and that is possibly the last week will ever see of her unless she gets her case heard as a miscarriage ofjustice. that is dominic casciani reporting there. now to the election in the united states. the economy is one of the top issues in voters' minds with just two weeks to go until the presidential election. inflation, jobs, manufacturing and trade policy have been the focus of the debate — with the democratic candidate, vice president kamala harris, having to defend joe biden�*s record, which has seen big rises in petrol, housing and food prices over the past four years. kamala harris has promised to control prices in the shops many americans agree with donald trump that fracking could reduce the cost of running a car by increasing oil production at home. our correspondent gary o'donoghue has travelled to the swing state of michigan to find out how voters there view the economic arguments. in michigan, the home of the motor car,

they like to put their vehicles to the test. it's like the us — a bumpy ride! the lesser of two evils for me at this time is trump. the economy was better four years ago. i hope that he can return it to that. mark walz works building axles in the car industry. he's sceptical about the push towards electric vehicles favoured by the democrats. i'm all for doing what you can to help the environment, but electric vehicles are kind of silly. i don't think we have the infrastructure for them. i think itjust all got politicised. they're not a saviour. just down the road, they're parading theirjeeps. fuel prices are on everyone's mind here. they're 50% higher than they were four years ago. mary and eric blame the democrats. we need to use the resources we have in our own country and not buy it from other countries. so when donald trump says, "drill, baby, drill.." that's right. i'm with donald, yep.

and it's notjust fuel. for what— it used to cost us to get we get two bags of groceries now. every day, we're packing and i delivering over 10,000 healthy, nourishing meals for our local children. i while overall inflation is down to 2.5%, rising food prices mean charities like this are still seeing demand from working families. in 2024, we've had more requests forl services than we ever have in our 22—year history — - because healthy food is continuing - to be more and more inaccessible. - in fact, the average househol