♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: two retiring executives turn their focus to greyhounds,

giving these former race dogs a real chance to win. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing sutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news" 'n fraser. 'n this is "the context." >> this new bill is a significant step forward. it holds polluting water companies to account of the year where there has been no accountability. >> what this bill does it is comes up with some nice emotive phrases like prison sentences, banning bonuses and so on, but it doesn't address th fundamental problem. >> introducing these new laws

and tougher penalties certainly looks like a step toward cleaning up our waterways, but there is plenty of evidence that the water companies have been breaking the res around sewage spills for years. christian: the government threatens jail for uncperative water bosses and restrictions on their bonuses. are they plans that will work or are they windowdressing? also tonight, france finally has a prime minister. you will know him, thformer brexit negotiator michel barnier. they will need all his skills to organize a rock is french parliament. and not entirely immune from prosecution coming from plead not guilty to his january 6 case as it returns to court in washington. very welcome to the program. the waterways here in britain

are awash with records amount of sewage. today, the government announced a new bill that would beef up the powers of the water regulator. in the future, water bosses in england and wales will face to years in prison if they are found to have obstructed an investigation into a sewage spill, and their bonuses will be blocked if they fail to meet environmental and financial standards. but activists say it is not enough. the system is broken and the current regulations are not being enforced. here is our environment correspondent jonah fisher. >> profits and pollution. for years, water companies have paid out dividends to shareholders and bonuses to executives, while at the same time discharging sewage into our rivers, lakes, and seas. but could that be about to change? on the banks of the thames, the environment minister steve reed introducedew legislation to and what he called the disgraceful behavior of the

water companies and their bosses. >> this new bill is a significant step forward in fixing our broken water system. it is an immedia down payment on the water reform needed after years of failure on environmental damage. it holds polluting water companies to account after years where there has been no accountability. >> the new bill will give regulators more power to take action against the water companies when they pollute. executives who block investigations could be sent to jail. bonuses will be conditional on the company meeting environmental and financial standards. watching on, the chief executive of seven trent water. last year, she took on more than 3,000,000 pounds. >> ms. garfield, are you where would you won't be getting three point 2,000,000 pounds next year? introducing these new laws and tougher penalties certainly looks like a step toward

cleaning up our waterways. but there is plenty of evidence that the water companies have been breaking the rules around sewage spills for years. many campaigners say the real problem is that the regulators have been letting them get away with it. >> we have perfectly decent laws, perfectly acceptable legal framework. the problem is it's never been enforced. what this bill does is comes up with some nice emotive phrases like prison sentences, banning bonuses and so on, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem. we have a set of regulations already and they are not being enforced. the only way they are enforced is for the regulators to b properly funded and empowered to do the job they are supposed to be doing. >> water companies say they know the current system isn't working. they say the best way to stop the sewage spills is for more than 100,000,000,000 pounds to be spent on new infrastructure, paid for by a sharp rise in

customer bills. christian: let speak to the director of science and policy at the environmental charity earthwatch. you will have heard the criticism in the report, that this will not make any material difference to the way companies behave, because the regulations are not being enforced. what do you say to them? >> i think we are not going to legislate our way out of this problem. it will take collective action from the government, from water companies, also from farmers and citizen scientists taking action. but i think it's a step in the right direction. christian: the environment secretary who you saw in that report said up until this point there has been no accountability for the executives. here you have personal liability. when i'm not clear on is whether they are responsible for covering up some of these investigations. is it a widespread practice? >> i think that water companies

have, up until now, not been completely transparent with air pollution data. part of this bill is that they need to be transparent, all emergency overflows need to be monitored, and that data on the frequency and duration of discharges needs to be released within the hour. that is a move towards more transparency. christian: this is the change the environment secretary announced today. there will be checks on all emergency outflows, not just for the regulator, but for us the public, and we will see them in real time. >> this is what is in the legislation, yes. we will have access to the data, easily accessible, we will all be able to understand it. at earthwatch, we believe in the power of data to change. having this data is a step in the right direction for protecting our freshwater. christian: what difference does it make if you know about it in real time?

>> we know where the pollution events are happening, when they are happening, therefore when we need to take immediate and drastic action to prevent at from happening in the future. christian: the chief executives of these water companies say the real solution is billions of pounds of investment. can you meet the regulators' demand without plowing in the kind of money they want the bill payer? >> i think there are a number of solutions to the problem. one of them is nature-based solutions. we can be implementing weands to remove a number of pollutants from our freshwater systems, investing in the infrastructure is certainly one way of improving water pollution. i think water companies should be taking a long hard look at their resource management before requesting more funding from the customers. christian: part of the problem as i understand it, there is a lack of sewage infrastructure in parts of the country. holding up housebuilding.

we have to somehow encourage water investment so we can unlock the 300,000 homes that we want to build every year. >> exactly. we cannot build on more land and use natural building houses because that will only worsen the problem. we know that wetlands are very important for clearing up our waterways, natural habitats, treaties are helpful in clearing water and pollution. using that or houses will just make the problem worse. ye there is money that needs to be put into the infrastructure of our sewer systems. christian: final word on pay, which annoys people, the sums that these boxes are being paid. this was introduced by the last government, but does bonuses are being taken from shareholder profits, rather than from the customers. but i understand the regulator was already consulting on

whether bonuses could be banned. what is different and what this new government announced today? >> i think this government is trying to empower the regulators to take action more rapidly and without the need for in-depth investigations that just prolong the issue. i think this is an empowerment of our regulators. christian: good to talk with you. thanks for coming on the program. two months ago, we were in paris bring you the results of the french election. we didn't warn you at the time that french politics was in a sorry state, but i didn't think it would take this long to bring you news of a new prime minister. today, we have one, the eu former brexit negotiator, michel barnier, who has been tapped by him emmanuel macron to form a new government after deadlocks of negotiations between the three main groups in the parliament. that parliament could still be to mr. macron's choice to a vote

of no-confidence but it seems likely the right wing national reassured that mr. barniers comments on immigration. as for the left wing alliance, the biggest block in the assembly says this macron had stolen the election from the french people. we can speak to our guest to talk about france. thanks for coming on. are you surprised at the choice he made, but i did it taken so long to arrive on michel barnier? >> i think most of us were a little bit surprised. his name had been circulating earlier in the summer and then over the past three or four days it seemed as if we were getting very close to an appointment. different names were near certainties.

people from the center left center-right, other names, technocrats were floated. when mr. barnier 's name came out last night, people were surprised but also relieved that this period of waiting would be coming to an end, just a few weeks away from the deadline having to present the budget to cabinet and then parliament, there is actually a prime minister, fully functioning prime minister, if you like, in the seat. christian: i have interviewed him in the past. spent a lot of time listening to him in brussels of course. he is a mountain walker, very cool under pressure, and he will needll of that. this is some path he has to negotiate in the weeks ahead. >> yes, i think he will be faced with an incredibly difficult task. he is clearly a good negotiator,

consensus builder. i think all of this will play in his favor. he will need these qualities in spades. but it is also quite clear that macron has appointed someone who is drawn from a party who came in fourth place. this is going to sit poorly not with just the parties and the french national assembly, but also with the voters, who are going to wonder why when macron said nobody really has won the election outright, that may be true. but some people did lose the election. this was the mainstream right party from which barnier hails. it is a strange choice, and understandable choice. basically macron had to select someone who wasn't going to be facing a motion of no-confidence from day one. with barnier, he has managed to

clinch this, but it will be a very fragile government. christian: someone has to do it because there cannot be another election until june. they have to pass a budget, which france desperately needs. with respect to the finances, in a pretty sorry state, as they are in many countries across europe, and the eu is bearing down, demanding deficit cuts. how will that play with the far-right block and the far left the block when he puts those cuts before parliament? >> there are two important things here. one is, as you say, he has to impose some kindf austerity measures. i think the cost of living crisis, that kind of worry, these are worries that are shared by both the voters on the left, far left, and also voters on the far-right. that will not sit well with them. the other important thing -- and

i'm not sure this is what drove macron's choice. i think his choice was probably driven by desperation and frustration in the end. but one thing we need to keep in mind is that barnier was not just the brexit negotiator, he was twice european commissioner, he knows the ins and outs of brussels, the commission. if there is somebody who can probably play a favorable role and try and negotiate the procedure the commission has launched against france, it is probably barnier. not to mention the fact, barnier , because he is from the droit party, means that he is closer to the epp, ursula von der leyen's camp in brussels. whenever barnier's shortcomings, he can be an asset for france in europe, particularly given the

pressure that france is facing. christian: that is a really good point, actually. that will certainly stand him in good stead. final thought on his government. does he put other technocrats in the party around him? does he try and select from the biggest groupings on the left and the right? >> i think people try to have a mix. we are almost certain to have some of the outgoing ministers probably coming back. i don't think that le mer should be written off, current finance minister. he has been a strong supporter of barnier. we may see him come back. the current home office minister may also make a comeback in a different ministry. he will have to be mindful of the fact that this is a very fragmented national assembly. people have to draw from the left and the right. the problem is, i doubt he will

be able to attract many people from the left. barnier, it's interesting, refer to him as appointing other technocrats. this is the genius sleight-of-hand that macron had performed here. basically, this is really a right wing prime minister that he has appointed, but everyone thinks of him as a technocrat because he is linked to europe. in all of this, this is probably what may save the move at least in the short term. people think of barnier as a technocrat for now, but i don't know how long he can maintain that illusion. christian: i will imagine that they suss it out pretty quickly. thank you for coming on. around the world and across the u.k., you are watching bbc news. let's bring you the other stories we have been following today. one person has died after a royal navy helicopter ditches in

the sea last night near dorset. the ministry of defense is that helicopters were taking part in a night exercise when the incident occurred. lucy b has replaced her legal team and is planning a new appeal. a former neonatal nurse, one of the uk's most notorious modern serial killers convicted in two separate trials of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill seven others under her care. indecent assault charges in the u.k. against the disgraced hollywood for producer harvey weinstein have been discontinued in their prosecution. cps said it made the decision after reviewing the evidence in the case and concluding there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. 72-year-old was charged in 2022 with two counts of indecent assault dating back to 1996.

the chief prosecutor at the international criminal court has told the bbc justice must be seen to be done, after seeking an arrest warrant in may for israel's prime minister and the defense minister. he was also seeking mourns for three hamas leaders, two of whom have since been killed. we have been speaking to nick robinson on political thinking. >> what could i have done? if they had applied for warrants for hamas and not against, not looked at the evidence -- the evidence compelled in israel, at the time 40,000 plus people have been killed in gaza. this is a record that has influenced a week prosecutor. if one had applied for warrants in relation to israeli officials, not for gaza. well, this is an obscenity but how is that possible?

we had evidence. we need to apply the law. you cannot have one approach for countries where there is support, nato support, european support, powerful countries behind you, and a different approach what you have clear jurisdiction. christian: plenty more on that interview on bbc, or wherever you get your podcasts. in the u.s., there are two trials making news, both of them linked to the november presidential elections. in california, hunter biden is facing nine charges related to tax fraud and evasion. the indictment says he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes, while spending most of his money on drugs and escorts. at the last minute today, he entered what is known as an alford plea, entering a guilty verdict while still maintaining his innocence. we will talk about that in a second. meanwhile in washington, donald

trump was back in court over the revised indictment looking into the january 6 riots on capitol hill. lawyers entered a not guilty plea to the charges brought by the special counsel jack smith. the hearing was adjourned this afternoon without any trial date being set. trump's attorney is trying to push for a delay until after the election has been held. let's speak to a former federal prosecutor, republican strategist. always nice to see you, joe. an alford plea. how do courts tend to view it? >> most americans have never heard of an alford deal. fairly unusual. i have had difficult clients, but if i said, let's figure out a way to antagonize a judge and the prosecutors by going in on the day of trial and changing our plea, and asking for an alford plea, which the prosecutors have to approve, it is actually a kind of deal.

i have to think it was quite a stir in court this morning, still ing on as we speak. it is a special arrangement, basically a situation where a defendant says i am maintaining i am not guilty but i acknowledge there is so much evidence against me, a jury will likely find me guilty. it has to go to the highest levels of the justice department for approval. there is no guarantee he will get it. at this point, it is really in the hands of the judge to say, we can put things off, you can really organize with the justice department to see if they will approve it, despite the fact that you have made them angry, or you can give us a queen guilty plea, or the third option as every go to trial right n, which is the way it was supposed to be as of this morning. christian: we should remember the background to this, there was a plea deal originally agreed to which involved him having possessioof a weapon while under the influence of drugs, but also some tax charges involved in that.

a for plea deal had gone ahead in delaware, that he would have been protected from this. but it fell apart because the justice department thought it went over the arms. why would they consider an alford deal in this place? >> that was a fantastic deal last summer, would have reduced both of these cases to two tax misdemeanors, not felonies, and a suspended conviction of the gun charge. which means if you are good for a year, the charges disappear. it was a fantastic plea arrangement. it fell apart because both sides could not agree to the terms, even though they spent months working on it. it was really a failure on both sides. that would have been a fantastic solution. now one year later, as the government had prepared evidence, witnesses, had hearing before a judge, to now say let's go back to the negotiating table to get the deal back on the table, i don't know. regardless of who your father

is, the justi department will not look kindly on this. christian: we will see how it flies. let's talk about donald trump in washington. the judge said the election is not relevant to the trial. what does that mean? you should go to schedule hearings in the run-up to the november election? >> we have had hearings in that case for over a year now. that is not a big deal. she is correct. an election should not affect a trial either way, meaning it should not rush a crowd to get done before an election, or not delayed because of an election. that is the right thing for her to say. i do think, though, for all the people that bought a trial was possible before the november election, no way we are talking about months, may be before the case goes to trial. all of those immunity issues at the supreme court decided on all have to be litigated now at the

trial court leveland they are subject to appeal. if the judge rules one way or the other on each individual immunity holding, the prosecution or the defense can appeal. where does that ultimately go? the supreme court. this could go on in circles for a very long time. i like what she said about this not being political, but there is no way that this would have gone to trial in the next two months. christian: with respect to this revised indictment, how does it look different to you, since the supreme court ruled on immunity? >> very little. i'm not convinced this will solve the government's problems. this results from a case which says the government can only use an obstruction of congress charging very certain circumstances, basically to destroy evidence that congress was going to review. it does not really apply, i believe, in the situation where the algation is that trump and his supporters prevented

congress from counting electoral college votes. superseding indictment, it took some language out, downplayed trump's role as president, up played his role as a candidate. i'm not convinced it will really change it. that, again, is subject to appeal. so yet another one of the several avenues that will likely delay the case for a long time. christian: just to give people a flavor of what they are talking about, one of the think the trump team wanted to decide ahead of the trial was whether the allegations made by mike pence in that indictment are immune, whether it comes under his presidential remit. >> that's right. it is not an easy one. was he acting as president trump or acting as candidate trump in those run ups to january 6 where he was ting to pressure vice president pence to basically not count the electoral college votes against him in certain

states. not an easy call. probably not one that will be resolved anytime soon. christian: thank you for coming on. former federal prosecutor. on the other side of the break, we are back with ai decoded. we will talk about ai in the field of weather and climate. announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... financial services firm, raymond james. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: "usa today" calls it, "arguably the best bargain in streaming." that's because the free pbs app

lets you watch the best of pbs anytime, anywhere.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: two retiring executives turn their focus to greyhounds,