new zealand, to win, needed 398. well, daryl mitchell proved that even the loudest crowd can be silenced. mitchell kept surprising, kept his team believing, seven sixes in his century. eventually, mitchell found the fielder, ravi jadeja. new zealand finished 70 runs behind. mohammed shami finished with seven wickets. india in the final, excitement to another level. they are not invincible — it's just unclear who can beat them. this morning, the government's rwanda plan was in shreds. legislation, saying, quote, "i will not allow a foreign court to block these flights". it's the latest government policy to try and "stop the boats". immigration minster robertjenrick tells us the government actually won today. 0n the programme, we'll hear from one of the asylum seekers whose case was at the heart of this legal battle. he came to the uk on a small boat in 2022, after he says he was tortured in his home country. but why the uk, when he'd travelled through multiple safe countries to get here? if you don't speak french, if you don't speak the language, you can't find a job. and for labour, peter kyle is here — after 56 labour mps defy sir keir starmer by voting for a ceasefire in gaza, in the biggest rebellion of his leadership so far. also tonight... the prime minister saye he's achieved one of his five pledges — halving inflation by the end of the year. we've returned to knowsley — the second most deprived borough in england — to see if life is any less of a struggle. the bills are just going up and up. and all the food, although it's going up, with some ridiculous prices, it's not going to come down. everything that goes up doesn't come down. good evening. the prime minister claims he does have a plan b to get flights off to rwanda after all, after five justices at the supreme court today ruled the government's policy was unlawful because of the risk of asylum seekers being forcibly sent back from rwanda to their own country, where they could be tortured or killed. we will expecting to bejudged on its success. today, over to thejudges, who said no. the plan to send illegal migrants to rwanda was ruled unlawful, partly on the principle of non—refoulement, that refugees must not be returned to their country of origin if their life or freedom would be threatened. that is guaranteed under the un refugee convention. thejudges guaranteed under the un refugee convention. the judges also guaranteed under the un refugee convention. thejudges also raised concerns about compliance with international agreements on civil rights, torture and the european convention on human rights. today, the suweme — convention on human rights. today, the supreme court _ convention on human rights. today, the supreme court has _ convention on human rights. today, the supreme court hasjudged - convention on human rights. today, the supreme court hasjudged that i the supreme court has judged that the supreme court has judged that the rwanda policy requires a set of changes in order to be lawful. to the prime minister, who announced a three—point plan to answer the supreme court. a new international treaty with rwanda to protect those sent there against being removed. emergency legislation to confirm that rwanda is a safe country. and stopping the european court of human rights from blocking rwanda flights, perhaps by the supplying certain aspects of the convention. idietitian perhaps by the supplying certain aspects of the convention. when i said i would _ aspects of the convention. when i said i would stop _ aspects of the convention. when i said i would stop the _ aspects of the convention. when i said i would stop the boats, - aspects of the convention. when i said i would stop the boats, l. aspects of the convention. when i l said i would stop the boats, i meant it committed a's judgment has not weakened my resolve, it has only hardened it. —— i meant it and today'sjudgment. hardened it. -- i meant it and today's judgment.— hardened it. -- i meant it and today's judgment. hardened it. -- i meant it and toda 's 'udument. today's 'udgment. yvette cooper said it was today's judgment. yvette cooper said it was a failure _ today's judgment. yvette cooper said it was a failure and _ today's judgment. yvette cooper said it was a failure and that _ today's judgment. yvette cooper said it was a failure and that the _ today's judgment. yvette cooper said it was a failure and that the home - it was a failure and that the home secretary was no fan. he distanced himself from _ secretary was no fan. he distanced himself from it _ secretary was no fan. he distanced himself from it and _ secretary was no fan. he distanced himself from it and his _ himself from it and his predecessor's language on it and he may evenly— predecessor's language on it and he may evenly —— and he may evenly —— even _ may evenly —— and he may evenly —— even privately— may evenly —— and he may evenly —— even privately have dismissed it. but we _ even privately have dismissed it. but we need a properly controlled and managed to sum for asylum and refugees _ and managed to sum for asylum and refu~ees. ., , . and managed to sum for asylum and refu~ees. ., ' . . , , refugees. home office sources used stronuer refugees. home office sources used stronger language — refugees. home office sources used stronger language in _ refugees. home office sources used stronger language in private - refugees. home office sources used stronger language in private to - refugees. home office sources used stronger language in private to denyj stronger language in private to deny this. and a guarded welcome for rishi sunak�*s emergency legislation from a key figure on the right. we have heard from the prime minister today— have heard from the prime minister today that _ have heard from the prime minister today that he — have heard from the prime minister today that he is _ have heard from the prime minister today that he is committed - have heard from the prime minister today that he is committed to - have heard from the prime ministerj today that he is committed to doing whatever— today that he is committed to doing whatever it — today that he is committed to doing whatever it takes, _ today that he is committed to doing whatever it takes, he _ today that he is committed to doing whatever it takes, he said _ today that he is committed to doing whatever it takes, he said that - whatever it takes, he said that before — whatever it takes, he said that before and _ whatever it takes, he said that before and today _ whatever it takes, he said that before and today he _ whatever it takes, he said that before and today he said - whatever it takes, he said that before and today he said he i whatever it takes, he said that. before and today he said he would review our— before and today he said he would review our domestic— before and today he said he would review our domestic and - review our domestic and international _ review our domestic and international legal- review our domestic and - international legal framework. review our domestic and _ international legal framework. and if necessary. — international legal framework. and if necessary, change _ international legal framework. and if necessary, change them - international legal framework. and if necessary, change them in - to see the policy which he remains committed — to see the policy which he remains committed to _ to see the policy which he remains committed to commerce _ to see the policy which he remains committed to commerce to - to see the policy which he remains committed to commerce to see i to see the policy which he remains. committed to commerce to see that policy— committed to commerce to see that policy through _ committed to commerce to see that policy through i_ committed to commerce to see that policy through. i am _ committed to commerce to see that policy through. i am encouraged - committed to commerce to see that policy through. i am encouraged byl policy through. i am encouraged by that _ policy through. i am encouraged by that but _ policy through. i am encouraged by that but the — policy through. i am encouraged by that. but the policy _ policy through. i am encouraged by that. but the policy of _ policy through. i am encouraged by that. but the policy of sticking - that. but the policy of sticking with the — that. but the policy of sticking with the rwanda _ that. but the policy of sticking with the rwanda policy- that. but the policy of sticking with the rwanda policy and i that. but the policy of sticking with the rwanda policy and ifl that. but the policy of sticking. with the rwanda policy and if you come _ with the rwanda policy and if you come to — with the rwanda policy and if you come to this _ with the rwanda policy and if you come to this country _ with the rwanda policy and if you come to this country illegally, . with the rwanda policy and if you i come to this country illegally, you cannot— come to this country illegally, you cannot have — come to this country illegally, you cannot have a _ come to this country illegally, you cannot have a right— come to this country illegally, you cannot have a right to _ come to this country illegally, you cannot have a right to stay - come to this country illegally, you cannot have a right to stay there, | cannot have a right to stay there, which _ cannot have a right to stay there, which is _ cannot have a right to stay there, which is the — cannot have a right to stay there, which is the unacceptable - cannot have a right to stay there, which is the unacceptable realityl cannot have a right to stay there, i which is the unacceptable reality we have at _ which is the unacceptable reality we have at the — which is the unacceptable reality we have at the moment. _ which is the unacceptable reality we have at the moment. it _ which is the unacceptable reality we have at the moment. it should - which is the unacceptable reality we have at the moment. it should not. which is the unacceptable reality we i have at the moment. it should not be possible _ have at the moment. it should not be possible to _ have at the moment. it should not be possible to come _ have at the moment. it should not be possible to come to _ have at the moment. it should not be possible to come to this _ have at the moment. it should not be possible to come to this country - possible to come to this country illegally— possible to come to this country illegally and _ possible to come to this country illegally and stay _ possible to come to this country illegally and stay here _ illegally and stay here indefinitely. _ illegally and stay here indefinitely. we - illegally and stay here indefinitely. we havel illegally and stay here i indefinitely. we have got illegally and stay here - indefinitely. we have got to be illegally and stay here _ indefinitely. we have got to be able to remove _ indefinitely. we have got to be able to remove people _ indefinitely. we have got to be able to remove people.— to remove people. esther mcvey. a challenging — to remove people. esther mcvey. a challenging day _ to remove people. esther mcvey. a challenging day for _ to remove people. esther mcvey. a challenging day for the _ to remove people. esther mcvey. al challenging day for the government. after thejudgment challenging day for the government. after the judgment today, does the ministerfor after the judgment today, does the minister for common sense think we should pull out of the echr? i will seak with should pull out of the echr? i will speak with all _ should pull out of the echr? i will speak with all my _ should pull out of the echr? ii-n' ii. speak with all my colleagues, it should pull out of the echr? in ii. speak with all my colleagues, it is notjust speak with all my colleagues, it is not just about what i speak with all my colleagues, it is notjust about what i think, it is what everybody else thinks and fundamentally what the prime minister thinks. fundamentally what the prime ministerthinks. give fundamentally what the prime minister thinks. give me time to take on board thatjudgment, but work with my colleagues. but pulling out is something _ work with my colleagues. but pulling out is something you _ work with my colleagues. but pulling out is something you would - work with my colleagues. but pulling out is something you would want - work with my colleagues. but pulling out is something you would want to i out is something you would want to talk to colleagues about. indie out is something you would want to talk to colleagues about.— out is something you would want to talk to colleagues about. we will be lookin: at talk to colleagues about. we will be looking at all— talk to colleagues about. we will be looking at all the _ talk to colleagues about. we will be looking at all the options _ talk to colleagues about. we will be looking at all the options and - talk to colleagues about. we will be looking at all the options and what. looking at all the options and what is a realistic option. but obviously, we want to deliver the policy for this country and we are looking at immigration and how we get those numbers down. and looking at immigration and how we get those numbers down.— looking at immigration and how we get those numbers down. and it is a bi setback get those numbers down. and it is a big setback today _ get those numbers down. and it is a big setback today for _ get those numbers down. and it is a big setback today for the _ big setback today for the government?— big setback today for the government? , , ., ., ., government? one step at a time, one ste at a government? one step at a time, one step at a time- — government? one step at a time, one step at a time. deputy _ government? one step at a time, one step at a time. deputy prime - step at a time. deputy prime minister. _ step at a time. deputy prime minister, are _ step at a time. deputy prime minister, are you _ step at a time. deputy prime i minister, are you disappointed step at a time. deputy prime - minister, are you disappointed by the ruling? and do you think that the ruling? and do you think that the time has come to pull out of the echr? you could tell this was a difficult day for rishi sunak when he told the commons tea shortly after prime minister's questions, and this evening, he walked around the division lobbies with leading members of the tory right. i've got a plan, he reassured them. i am told the prime minister was heard politely, but with a dose of scepticism. a time for reflection in the heart of government. and tonight, a time for a new battle plan. just before we came on air, i spoke to the immigration minister robertjenrick. well, good evening, victoria. it is absolutely critical that flights go off to rwanda in the spring. the prime minister emphasise that and thatis prime minister emphasise that and that is what we are setting out to achieve. 0f that is what we are setting out to achieve. of course were disappointed by thejudgment of achieve. of course were disappointed by the judgment of the supreme court, but we have been working on a plan b for a long time —— we are disappointed. that includes a treaty which we are in the final stages of negotiating. and an accompanying piece of emergency legislation that sorts out the remaining issues, determines rwanda as a safe country and ensures that the endless cycle of legal disputes and challenges finally comes to an end. 0nce of legal disputes and challenges finally comes to an end. once we have got that on the statute book, i am confident if it is sufficiently comprehensive that we can get those flights off and we have to do that in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee — in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee it? _ in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee it? i _ in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee it? i think- in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee it? i think i - in the spring of next year. but you can't guarantee it? i think i have l can't guarantee it? i thinki have been very _ can't guarantee it? i thinki have been very clear _ can't guarantee it? i thinki have been very clear with _ can't guarantee it? i thinki have been very clear with you, - can't guarantee it? i think i have i been very clear with you, victoria, thatis been very clear with you, victoria, that is what we are setting out to do. ~ . that is what we are setting out to do. . . . , that is what we are setting out to do. ~ . ., , , ., that is what we are setting out to do. . ., do. which means you can't guarantee it. we do. which means you can't guarantee it- we have — do. which means you can't guarantee it- we have to — do. which means you can't guarantee it. we have to do _ do. which means you can't guarantee it. we have to do it. _ do. which means you can't guarantee it. we have to do it. you _ do. which means you can't guarantee it. we have to do it. you cannot - it. we have to do it. you cannot guarantee it, there is a difference, voters are not stupid. that guarantee it, there is a difference, voters are not stupid.— voters are not stupid. that is what i am voters are not stupid. that is what i am setting _ voters are not stupid. that is what i am setting out — voters are not stupid. that is what i am setting out to _ voters are not stupid. that is what i am setting out to achieve - voters are not stupid. that is what i am setting out to achieve and - voters are not stupid. that is what | i am setting out to achieve and the litmus test of both the treaty and the peaceable emergency legislation is can, together, they ensure we get the flights of two rwandans are in the flights of two rwandans are in the spring? we must do that and everyone will have to judge the seriousness of those things —— the flights to rwanda. theyjudge it by the —— theyjudge it now the weather we can meet that objective. the we can meet that ob'ective. the prime minister h we can meet that objective. the prime minister also said this evening, i will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. but he didn't say that he would pull out of the european convention on human rights. 0verseen by the european court of human rights in strasbourg. why didn't rishi sunak say he would pull out of the echr?— pull out of the echr? firstly, neither the _ pull out of the echr? firstly, neither the prime _ pull out of the echr? firstly, neither the prime minister i pull out of the echr? firstly, | neither the prime minister nor i pull out of the echr? firstly, - neither the prime minister nor i can go into the details of the bill because we are in the final stages of drafting it right now and that is for an understandable reason and not because we have been sitting on our hands, but we had to wait for the supreme courtjudgment and the exact issues that they raised with our policy so that we could craft the bill appropriately. policy so that we could craft the billappropriately. i policy so that we could craft the bill appropriately. i am policy so that we could craft the bill appropriately. iam not policy so that we could craft the bill appropriately. i am not going to speculate on exactly the contents of the bill, but let me say this. the prime minister and i have said for a long time that we will do whatever it takes to get the flights off to rwanda and we both meant it. i am determined to deliver on that. that is interesting. that doesn't necessarily mean leaving or moving away from our international obligations, but it does mean that we have to end the cycle of legal challenges and ensure that this matter is finally concluded. so the bill has to do that.— bill has to do that. when i look at what some _ bill has to do that. when i look at what some of— bill has to do that. when i look at what some of the _ bill has to do that. when i look at what some of the five _ bill has to do that. when i look at what some of the five justices - bill has to do that. when i look at| what some of the five justices said about your policy and they pretty much repeated what the court of appealjudges said. rwanda has little or no experience of considering and —— asylum applications from the relevant countries, where rwanda has declined applications, no written reasons have been provided and there is no right of appeal. rwanda has a surprisingly high rejection rate for claimants from known conflict zones, it has forcibly expelled some asylum seekers in the year maintaining close diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries. they absolutely demolished your policy —— in the interest of maintaining. how did anyone in government, the prime minister, your boss, the home secretary, ever think you would win this on appeal? you secretary, ever think you would win this on appeal?— secretary, ever think you would win this on a- eal? ., ., ., , this on appeal? you have to remember we won on the — this on appeal? you have to remember we won on the divisional— this on appeal? you have to remember we won on the divisional court - this on appeal? you have to remember we won on the divisional court and - we won on the divisional court and at the court of appeal, we lost on a splitjudgment and the most senior judge in that case, that occasion strongly supported our argument. victoria, we have won on the most important question of all, which is the principal, which is that a country such as the united kingdom can work with another partner such as rwanda to send asylum seekers there. there isjust a question now about whether or not we had sufficient assurances that that country won't send people against their will back to their country. forgive me, that is incredible spinning, you have not won on the main principle, you have lost all five justices who main principle, you have lost all fivejustices who ruled it was unlawful because it was not safe to send asylum seekers to rwanda. that is a demolition of your rwanda policy. is a demolition of your rwanda oli . ., . ., ., is a demolition of your rwanda oli. ., .., .,�* is a demolition of your rwanda oli. ., ., �* ., ., policy. no, victoria, i'm afraid that is not— policy. no, victoria, i'm afraid that is not a _ policy. no, victoria, i'm afraid that is not a correct _ policy. no, victoria, i'm afraid that is not a correct reading i policy. no, victoria, i'm afraid that is not a correct reading of what has happened. the central argument at the heart of the entire case over the course of the last 18 months has been whether or not it is consistent with the refugee convention that a country like the uk can work with a third country and send asylum seekers there for their claims to be heard and for individuals to ultimately be settled individuals to ultimately be settled in that country. we have won that core point. what remains is a question about whether assurances from the government of rwanda are sufficient to satisfy the uk's legal framework that individuals will not be refouled to their country of origin. be refouled to their country of oriuin. ., i. ., be refouled to their country of oriuin. ., ., , origin. you said you have been workin: origin. you said you have been working on _ origin. you said you have been working on this _ origin. you said you have been working on this new— origin. you said you have been working on this new rwanda i origin. you said you have been - working on this new rwanda treaty for some time, how long? working on this new rwanda treaty forsome time, how long? for working on this new rwanda treaty for some time, how long? for several months. for some time, how long? for several months- suella _ for some time, how long? for several months. suella braverman _ for some time, how long? for several months. suella braverman would - for some time, how long? for several| months. suella braverman would have known about — months. suella braverman would have known about that _ months. suella braverman would have known about that and _ months. suella braverman would have known about that and she _ months. suella braverman would have known about that and she would - months. suella braverman would have known about that and she would have | known about that and she would have been involved with that? she known about that and she would have been involved with that?— been involved with that? she was, the former — been involved with that? she was, the former home _ been involved with that? she was, the former home secretary - been involved with that? she was, the former home secretary and i l the former home secretary and i worked very closely together on that, it was the prudent thing to do. we believed we would win in the supreme court, their arguments were very strong, but we are busy had to produce a plan b. truth? very strong, but we are busy had to produce a plan b.— very strong, but we are busy had to produce a plan b. why did she write in her letter — produce a plan b. why did she write in her letter to _ produce a plan b. why did she write in her letter to rishi _ produce a plan b. why did she write in her letter to rishi sunak- in her letter to rishi sunak yesterday and why did she seem to suggest there was no plan b? the former home _ suggest there was no plan b? tie: former home secretary and i worked on a plan b and that is what we are now in the process of implementing. so was she lying in that letter? ida. so was she lying in that letter? no, she wasn't- — so was she lying in that letter? no, she wasn't- at _ so was she lying in that letter? iifr, she wasn't. at what we now need to do is take the work that she and i did over the last few months and put that into practice. that means concluding this treaty, which is very well advanced, we have teams working on it as i speak, and accompany it with this piece of emergency legislation. do accompany it with this piece of emergency legislation.- accompany it with this piece of emergency legislation. do you agree with her when _ emergency legislation. do you agree with her when she _ emergency legislation. do you agree with her when she describes - emergency legislation. do you agree with her when she describes rishi i with her when she describes rishi sunakfor with her when she describes rishi sunak for essentially blocking as she parted her suggestions and saying that his leadership style was uncertain, weak and lacking in the qualities of leadership this country needs? ., ~' qualities of leadership this country needs? ., ,, ., needs? no, i think that the prime minister has _ needs? no, i think that the prime minister has been _ needs? no, i think that the prime minister has been very _ needs? no, i think that the prime minister has been very supportive j needs? no, i think that the prime i minister has been very supportive on this issue and has done more than any of his recent predecessors. in fact, you see that from the results we have achieved together as a team. i am absolutely focused on getting the flights off in the spring. and the flights off in the spring. and the legislation, the treaty must achieve that.— the legislation, the treaty must achieve that. ., ,, , ., , . achieve that. thank you very much for talkinu achieve that. thank you very much for talking to _ achieve that. thank you very much for talking to us _ achieve that. thank you very much for talking to us this _ achieve that. thank you very much for talking to us this evening. i let's talk now to conservative mp neil 0'brien — who is a supporter of the government's rwanda policy and asked rishi sunak in the house of commons earlier today to consider overiding the human rights act to ensure people could be deported to rwanda. do you generate is suggesting here? i do. i think it is right we do we do whatever it takes to stop the small boats. fundamentally the situation is we have had 112,000 people, come across on small boats retiring at the rule of law in this country and we can't have any sense of fairness of those who come here legally and play by the rules and see people just coming legally and play by the rules and see peoplejust coming into legally and play by the rules and see people just coming into the country and being able to stay. 0ur country and being able to stay. our ability to deport people has absolutely collapsed over recent years because of the build—up of caselaw and interpretation of various traditions and over time. what are you suggesting? brute various traditions and over time. what are you suggesting? we heard the prime minister _ what are you suggesting? we heard the prime minister talk _ what are you suggesting? we heard the prime minister talk about i what are you suggesting? we heard the prime minister talk about this i the prime minister talk about this evening both taking steps to respond to the supreme court was 's challenged directly by having the new treaty with rwanda but also doing something which i think it's more important which is a second piece of legislation that will protect the ability to deport people from various different avenues of legal challenge because time and time again we have seen... 50 legal challenge because time and time again we have seen... so not ullin: time again we have seen... so not pulling out — time again we have seen... so not pulling out of— time again we have seen... so not pulling out of the _ time again we have seen... so not pulling out of the echr _ time again we have seen... so not pulling out of the echr but - pulling out of the echr but overriding elements of it? i think that is the suggestion, _ overriding elements of it? i think that is the suggestion, one i overriding elements of it? i think that is the suggestion, one of. overriding elements of it? i think| that is the suggestion, one of the suggestions made and dominic has it been done anywhere else? he is right to think about every conceivable option here because people see year of the year people, across the channel and no it isn't fair, every poll shows it is overwhelmingly hated by the british public. you have had a _ hated by the british public. you have had a very _ hated by the british public. you have had a very long time to fix this. ~ ., , , have had a very long time to fix this. . . , , ., have had a very long time to fix this. ~ . , , ., ., , this. we have been trying for many ears and this. we have been trying for many years and three — this. we have been trying for many years and three with _ this. we have been trying for many years and three with at _ this. we have been trying for many years and three with at that - this. we have been trying for many years and three with at that with i years and three with at that with the courts once again blocking us from doing is a need trick in order to get people leaving the country these are ingersoll. for safety reasons. ~ , , ., these are ingersoll. for safety i reasons._ some of reasons. we signed up to. some of them we even _ reasons. we signed up to. some of them we even wrote _ reasons. we signed up to. some of them we even wrote and _ reasons. we signed up to. some of them we even wrote and when i reasons. we signed up to. some of them we even wrote and when we | reasons. we signed up to. some of- them we even wrote and when we wrote them we even wrote and when we wrote them there was no sense of people signing them that they would in future be used in the way they are now used everyday which are people from being deported. from now used everyday which are people from being deported.— from being deported. from being tortured and _ from being deported. from being tortured and sent _ from being deported. from being tortured and sent back _ from being deported. from being tortured and sent back to - from being deported. from being tortured and sent back to their i from being deported. from being i tortured and sent back to their home country and stop them being tortured and possibly killed. the country and stop them being tortured and possibly killed.— and possibly killed. the people cominu and possibly killed. the people coming here — and possibly killed. the people coming here are _ and possibly killed. the people coming here are coming i and possibly killed. the people coming here are coming here i and possibly killed. the people i coming here are coming here from france and extremely secondary so they will not be tortured or killed there. many of those people, some of them refugees, genuinely, i have had refugees live in my house, but a lot of them are not legitimate refugees, they are economic migrants and forcing their way into the country and i know that they can state because our ability to deport anybody has been totally hobbled by the build—up of caselaw. every time we see... the build-up of caselaw. every time we see... ~ , , the build-up of caselaw. every time wesee...~ , , ., ., ., we see... why is the grant rate for --eole we see... why is the grant rate for people coming _ we see... why is the grant rate for people coming from _ we see... why is the grant rate for people coming from afghanistan, | people coming from afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen, around 75%, the home office is agreeing they are genuine refugees. the home office is agreeing they are genuine refugees.— home office is agreeing they are genuine refugees. the rate used to be much lower. _ genuine refugees. the rate used to be much lower. or— genuine refugees. the rate used to be much lower. or complete i genuine refugees. the rate used to be much lower. or complete is i genuine refugees. the rate used to be much lower. or complete is one genuine refugees. the rate used to i be much lower. or complete is one of be much lower. 0r complete is one of the most generous in the world. a lot of these people, thousands of people came across the channel last year from people came across the channel last yearfrom india, the world'sjust moxie, superpower, many safe and legal ways to get from india. that is not a legitimate way to drive this countryjust posturing by crossing a channel in the hands of the people smugglers. ii crossing a channel in the hands of the people smugglers.— the people smugglers. if the irrespective _ the people smugglers. if the irrespective of _ the people smugglers. if the irrespective of how - the people smugglers. if the irrespective of how people i the people smugglers. if the irrespective of how people arrive the grant rate from places like that is very high. it the grant rate from places like that is very high-— is very high. it is not irrespective ofthe is very high. it is not irrespective of the way _ is very high. it is not irrespective of the way people _ is very high. it is not irrespective of the way people arrive, - is very high. it is not irrespective of the way people arrive, we i is very high. it is not irrespective | of the way people arrive, we kind is very high. it is not irrespective i of the way people arrive, we kind of situation which people know if they pay people smugglers and get across the channel they have a 90% chance of staying here. the channel they have a 90% chance of staying here-— the channel they have a 9096 chance of staying here-— of staying here. that is what the home office _ of staying here. that is what the home office says _ of staying here. that is what the home office says i _ of staying here. that is what the home office says i can - of staying here. that is what the home office says i can stay i of staying here. that is what the j home office says i can stay here because i have looked at the criteria and agreed they are genuine refugees. criteria and agreed they are genuine refu~ees. ., . , ., ., refugees. liquor current set of all that number _ refugees. liquor current set of all that number and _ refugees. liquor current set of all that number and can _ refugees. liquor current set of all that number and can some i refugees. liquor current set of all that number and can some thingsj that number and can some things never intended by the original frame of these bits of legislation is becoming increasingly impossible to deport the room. if everyone can see it, everyone can see again and again the people are put into custody and have umpteen appeals so if you start with 400 people by the evening of the fight you have 100, in their pyjamas people are getting off the plane and jeep get to people being deported. it is simple and unacceptable. it doesn't work. if you want to be a sovereign country under democracy you have to be able to have the right to deport people who shouldn't be here. that right has been eroded over time by the build—up of caselaw and we just have to fix that it isn't fair. build-up of caselaw and we 'ust have to fix that it isn't faini to fix that it isn't fair. thank you for bein: to fix that it isn't fair. thank you for being with _ to fix that it isn't fair. thank you for being with us. _ sima's here. you've been looking into the emergency legislation rishi sunak spoke about, and how long it could take. the emergency legislation will "confirm rwanda is safe", the prime minister said. that would obviously contradict what the supreme court ruled this morning. the legislation, like all legislation, will have to go through both houses. this could take as little as a few weeks, but because this is contentious, it may well take a lot longer. if it gets bogged down in the house of lords, the government won't have the parliament act to force it through. it can delay what's not in the manifesto by up to a year, and there is little the government can do about it. if it passes, the courts would be bound by the act of parliament, but the government is still a signatory of the refugee convention, which prevents asylum seekers being sent back to their country of origin if in danger there. so the uk would be in breach of international law. and what about the european court of human rights? the echr could also put interim measures in place to stop any flights. but the illegal migration act means the uk government could ignore it — although that would be a breach of international law. the prime minister hinted at that earlier, saying he "will not allow a foreign court to block these flights". however, asylum seekers could seek a judgment from the echr. that probably wouldn't delay the process if the government was determined to go ahead, but lawyers tell us it might lead to an order to bring the refugees back, or pay damages. if the government persisted, it could lead to an exit from the convention. thank you. i spoke today to one of the asylum seekers involved in the supreme court case. he's 49, arrived in the uk on a small boat in 2022 and found himself a few months later being given an airline ticket to rwanda. he asked us to hide his identity and where he comes from originally, in case itjeopardises his claim for asylum. his words are spoken by a translator. he explains what the decision today could mean for him and why he first fled his home country. translation: i was, with others, detained because of our _ background and religion. i was handcuffed for nine hours and standing up while i am handcuffed. i was subject to strikes and physical torture. eventually, you travel to france and you got on a small boat to cross the channel to come to the uk, arriving in spring 2022. can i ask you what that journey was like? you know, we were in that boat for seven long hours. and even the motor broke down of the boat. so it was really, really a frightening experience. why did you want to risk your life, getting to the uk in that way? well, i had to. i had to go to somewhere safe. everyone was talking positively about the uk. having said that, after my arrival, i was detained for three—odd months. france is a safe country, though. but if you don't speak french, if you don't speak the language, you can't find a job. you don't speak french, you don't speak english. is that right? here, at least you can go to a language school to learn, but there, you can't. it's very difficult there. can i ask how long you were detained for? i remember being in dover for three days and then boarded a bus, a coach, and taken to that deport centre. we received a letter informing us that the government is intending to send you to rwanda. at that point, was there any part of you wishing that you had never left your home country? yes. i had a pack of tablets being given to me for my mental health issues and i had a pack of paracetamol. i took them all. you would rather have died than been put on that flight? yes. are you relieved that your life was saved? today, after the court hearing, yes, iam. what would be wrong with being flown from the uk to rwanda to have your asylum case processed? it's chaos in rwanda. there's no law and order in rwanda. there's no legitimate government. there is some law and order. there is a legitimate government. i wonder if you could explain what it is you would fear about being in rwanda? check the internet, you know, you see killing, murders every day, gangs. the government just serves theirselves, you know? your reaction to the fact that the rwanda plan has been found unlawful? i am very pleased, whether i will benefit from this decision or not. but why should these vulnerable people be sent to rwanda? sir keir starmer has suffered a major rebellion tonight with eight shadow ministers leaving the front bench over his stance on the israel—gaza war. in total 56 labour mps voted for an snp motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in gaza. labour had ordered its mps to abstain, with frontbenchers facing the sack for supporting it. sir keir has instead backed "pauses" in the conflict to deliver aid, in a statement tonight he said, "i regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. but i wanted to be clear about where i stood, and i will stand. leadership is about doing the right thing." nick is here. this is it wasn't going well. shadow cabinet ministers were talking in corridors with potential rebels. interestingly up to the boat the atmosphere wasn't angry. it was one of deep sadness. i saw tears, labour mps had taken different views, hugging each other, interestingly not many rebels taking to the airwaves tonight. the agency that group was really sums up byjess phillips who resigned from the shadow home office team. she said she was resigning with great regret, she was resigning with great regret, she looked forward to supporting keir starmer become prime minister but she said she had to vote with her head and with her heart. i did find one of the rebels and this is what naz shah had to say to me. the idea that a child is killed every ten minutes in gaza. you know, palestinian children are being robbed. palestine is becoming a graveyard for children. these are not light terms. how can i not support a call for an immediate ceasefire? joining me in the studio now is labour mp and shadow secretary of state for science, innovation and technology peter kyle. can you answer naz sharp is my question, how can you not support calls for a ceasefire?— calls for a ceasefire? because ennis his aspiring — calls for a ceasefire? because ennis his aspiring party — calls for a ceasefire? because ennis his aspiring party of— calls for a ceasefire? because ennis his aspiring party of government i calls for a ceasefire? because ennis his aspiring party of government as| his aspiring party of government as to what could lead to a permanent and to the conflict. we know calling for a ceasefire at the moment will deliver a ceasefire. we also know looking back at history, if you look at 2012 than there was a ceasefire between israel and hamas, hamas growth that ceasefire two years later and in the two years they had rearmed and they came back with a counterattack that was more vicious than the previous one. jess counterattack that was more vicious than the previous one.— than the previous one. jess phillips said in her resignation _ than the previous one. jess phillips said in her resignation letter- said in her resignation letter tonight that she believes the military action which we are seeing now in gaza puts at risk any potential for peace in the future because the military action is so intense. ~ ., because the military action is so intense. ~ . ., , , intense. what we are seeing is the war that is — intense. what we are seeing is the war that is unfolding _ intense. what we are seeing is the war that is unfolding between i intense. what we are seeing is the i war that is unfolding between hamas and israel, it is putting at risk long—term political solutions, no question about that. the thing we are debating is actually what these immediate neck steps are because there are two emotions tonight, that would be devoted on. the first was a labour motion whichever single eight labour motion whichever single eight labour mp colt voted for which call for a cessation of the war and the step sticking that we could take to practically deliver it. there were some people that did want to go further and wanted to call for an immediate ceasefire but that isn't practical at the moment. what we saw and what nick described there is the emotion that is driving all of this. both sides, we deeply care about the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding. that is what naz shah said, had recalled for a ceasefire yesterday 144 children still be alive. but i don't think— 144 children still be alive. but i don't think anybody _ 144 children still be alive. emit i don't think anybody believes that anybody here unilaterally going for anybody here unilaterally going for a ceasefire would actually deliver a ceasefire on the ground. just tonight, probably why we have been on air the un has now passed a resolution calling for a humanitarian pause. resolution calling for a humanitarian ause. , . , humanitarian pause. the un security council. humanitarian pause. the un security council- and — humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the _ humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the us _ humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the us and _ humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the us and all— humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the us and all of- humanitarian pause. the un security council. and the us and all of our. council. and the us and all of our g7 partners _ council. and the us and all of our g7 partners calling _ council. and the us and all of our g7 partners calling for— council. and the us and all of our. g7 partners calling for humanitarian pausesis g7 partners calling for humanitarian pauses is a first major step. if we go online with that and stand shoulder to shoulder with our international community then we can have influence.— have influence. voters don't like divided parties. _ have influence. voters don't like divided parties. do _ have influence. voters don't like divided parties. do you - have influence. voters don't like divided parties. do you agree i have influence. voters don't like i divided parties. do you agree your divided parties. do you agree your divided party tonight? right divided parties. do you agree your divided party tonight?— divided party tonight? right now actually what — divided party tonight? right now actually what we _ divided party tonight? right now actually what we see _ divided party tonight? right now actually what we see is - divided party tonight? right now actually what we see is a - divided party tonight? right now actually what we see is a party i divided party tonight? right now. actually what we see is a party that came together over a way forward, some people wanted to go further but if you're talking about divided parties, when you see the conservative party right now. i will -ause conservative party right now. i will ause ou conservative party right now. i will pause you there. _ conservative party right now. i will pause you there. let's _ conservative party right now. i will pause you there. let's talk - conservative party right now. i will pause you there. let's talk about your party. there is division in your party. there is division in your party, nearly 30% of the party divide their leader. what does that say about discipline when you are trying to present yourself to voters as a government in waiting? unlike the conservative _ as a government in waiting? unlike the conservative party _ as a government in waiting? unlike the conservative party it _ as a government in waiting? unlike the conservative party it is - as a government in waiting? unlike the conservative party it is going i the conservative party it is going to side to side on all its policies we are still having one single policy led by our leader and what he is doing is showing that if he becomes prime minister he will lead forward with unanimity with our international partners. but forward with unanimity with our international partners.- forward with unanimity with our international partners. but not with his own party- _ international partners. but not with his own party- you _ international partners. but not with his own party. you look— international partners. but not with his own party. you look at - international partners. but not with his own party. you look at how i international partners. but not with his own party. you look at how he i his own party. you look at how he has led to this because of her set of challenges we had when i was speaking to you what was allowing all these backbenchers and other mps to talk about ceasefire— to talk about ceasefire because why he attacking — to talk about ceasefire because why he attacking them. _ to talk about ceasefire because why he attacking them. we _ to talk about ceasefire because why he attacking them. we went - to talk about ceasefire because why | he attacking them. we went through to talk about ceasefire because why i he attacking them. we went through a period of listening, engaging and it is a strength of the labour party that we have both traditions, people of muslim faith, jewish faith within our party, so we are trying and care has been trying really hard to bring them together and not exacerbate the divisions. but the time comes when a vote in parliament happens we didn't choose to have the so today, but the town council may have a bit environment and he is leader, the person it was to be the prime most of our country has to lead from the front and be decisive. that is what we have seen today but our policy is unchanged. he is leading from the front and has listened. we are supporting humanitarian pauses and want to move to a cessation of the conflict. ., . .., want to move to a cessation of the conflict. ., ., .. ., ., conflict. you are calling for a loner conflict. you are calling for a longer humanitarian - conflict. you are calling for a longer humanitarian pause, | conflict. you are calling for a i longer humanitarian pause, how conflict. you are calling for a - longer humanitarian pause, how long is a longer humanitarian pause? i am not auoin is a longer humanitarian pause? i am rrot going to — is a longer humanitarian pause? i am rrot going to sit _ is a longer humanitarian pause? i am not going to sit here _ is a longer humanitarian pause? i —ii not going to sit here and judge that. i have been an aid worker in my early life. i5 that. i have been an aid worker in my early life-— my early life. is it a day or two da s? my early life. is it a day or two days? whatever _ my early life. is it a day or two days? whatever is _ my early life. is it a day or two days? whatever is needed i my early life. is it a day or two days? whatever is needed to i my early life. is it a day or two i days? whatever is needed to get aid to where it is — days? whatever is needed to get aid to where it is needed. _ days? whatever is needed to get aid to where it is needed. fuel, - to where it is needed. fuel, medicine, water, and the aid workers to deliver that. we need to work in co—operation and allow the aid workers to do and then hopefully in that space that is created, hamas could be the one thing that could end this right away by releasing the hostages. d0 end this right away by releasing the hostaues. ,, end this right away by releasing the hostaues. , ., ,, ., end this right away by releasing the hostaues. ,, ,, ., , hostages. do you think that is likel ? hostages. do you think that is likely? 0f _ hostages. do you think that is likely? of course _ hostages. do you think that is likely? of course not - hostages. do you think that is likely? of course not which i hostages. do you think that is likely? of course not which is| hostages. do you think that is i likely? of course not which is why eo - le likely? of course not which is why people calling _ likely? of course not which is why people calling for _ likely? of course not which is why people calling for a _ likely? of course not which is why people calling for a ceasefire i likely? of course not which is why j people calling for a ceasefire right now aren't engaging with the reality that actually hamas are unlikely to release all sorts of design time soon. so release all sorts of design time soon, ., , release all sorts of design time soon. ., , ., release all sorts of design time soon. ., ., , soon. so many more palestinians will die? they could _ soon. so many more palestinians will die? they could do _ soon. so many more palestinians will die? they could do it _ soon. so many more palestinians will die? they could do it right _ soon. so many more palestinians will die? they could do it right now, i die? they could do it right now, it is in their power to _ die? they could do it right now, it is in their power to do so - die? they could do it right now, it is in their power to do so but with| is in their power to do so but with the new anna turley with our international partners we call for humanitarian pause to make sure we get to him entry and support in there, use that time wisely and see if we can move towards a permanent cessation and then move towards a political process.— political process. final question about rwanda, _ political process. final question about rwanda, labour's - political process. final question | about rwanda, labour's planters tackling the small blood crossings is to put more money into the national crime agency and keir starmer said smash the criminal gangs, how does it stop people getting in small boats, talk me through what happens on the beaches in france? that through what happens on the beaches in france? . , ., , ., in france? that is part of the plan ou have in france? that is part of the plan you have described. _ in france? that is part of the plan you have described. of _ in france? that is part of the plan you have described. of course i in france? that is part of the plan you have described. of course it i in france? that is part of the plan| you have described. of course it is fully funded by using the money that is being squandered at the moment of failing rwanda plan. but that is part of the plan. the failing rwanda plan. but that is part of the plan-— failing rwanda plan. but that is part of the plan. the other plan. i am asking — part of the plan. the other plan. i am asking about _ part of the plan. the other plan. i am asking about the _ part of the plan. the other plan. i am asking about the beaches, i part of the plan. the other plan. i | am asking about the beaches, you want to smash the gangs are practically what happens? firstly we do is muster — practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs _ practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs at _ practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs at that. - practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs at that. a i practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs at that. a lot i practically what happens? firstly we do is muster gangs at that. a lot of| do is muster gangs at that. a lot of people come to the beaches in the first place. the second thing is we want safe passage so we want arrangement so people can apply for asylum inside countries. so that i can apply for the process before they have to go to the beaches and get to britain in the first place. so we will smash the gangs and speed up so we will smash the gangs and speed up the processing of the asylum claims by allowing an extra thousand caseworkers, productivity has fallen by 50% of home office as it is. we will set up a new task force within the national crime agency, we will carry on working on the bilateral arrangement so we can have return policies, we will work with our european neighbours to make sure we can continue moving forward with the... ., can continue moving forward with the... . ., ., the... under a labour government should you — the... under a labour government should you win _ the... under a labour government should you win the _ the... under a labour government should you win the next _ the... under a labour government should you win the next election i should you win the next election does that mean there will be more asylum seekers in the uk? ila. does that mean there will be more asylum seekers in the uk?- asylum seekers in the uk? no, it doesnt asylum seekers in the uk? no, it doesn't because _ asylum seekers in the uk? no, it doesn't because we'll _ asylum seekers in the uk? no, it doesn't because we'll have i asylum seekers in the uk? no, it doesn't because we'll have a - doesn't because we'll have a functioning system actually. only thing that works as a deterrent is because i keep hearing the prime minister rishi sunak saying the rwanda scheme will be a deterrent, but it hasn't acted as one at all. what we are seeing atomic boat arrivals are down this year. double what they were two years ago. there hasn't acted as a deterrent. they emitted the deterrent is people knowing they are coming into a well—organised and functional asylum seeking process and if they don't qualify the equal terms with it. thank you. inflation fell sharply in october — down to a rate of 4.6% year—on—year. that's according to the latest official data published today. and rishi sunak says this means he has delivered on his pledge to halve inflation. but how much credit does the government deserve for this outcome? and does it signal the economic outlook for uk households is finally brightening? here's ben. as you'll have heard, the rate of inflation fell sharply in october, and the government says it's successfully fulfilled its promise to halve inflation in 2023. so is that right, what does it mean for the economy and what does it mean for you? first, on that halving question — this was inflation at its peak at the end of last year, io.7%. here's where it needed to get to. and here's where we are today, 4.6%. and presuming inflation doesn't spike up again in november or december, this is at least where we will end the year. so, yes, it does look like inflation will halve in 2023. but the degree to which that's something for which rishi sunak can legitimately take credit when responsibility for controlling inflation has been handed over to the operationally independent bank of england is questionable. it's also worth widening the lens to look at the uk's inflation picture through newsnight�*s global tracker. as this shows, the uk — shown in pink here — still has the highest inflation in the g7, although now roughly level with france, and we're rather less of an outlier then we looked earlier in the year. and when we look at core inflation — so this is inflation stripping out volatile things like energy and food — the uk still seems to be suffering greater inflationary pressures than our economic peers. as for what it means for you, it doesn't mean most prices are coming down, but they are rising at a less painful rate than they were. if the rate of inflation continues to fall, the bank of england might be able to cut interest rates from their current level of 5.25%, the highest in 15 years. that would give some relief to mortgage borrowers, yet those elevated core uk inflation figures we sawjust now will mean the bank will be likely wary of doing anything on that front for a while. and it's worth noting that the bank's latest gdp forecasts show a very weak outlook for the overall uk economy for the next two years, which implies a depressing outlook for household incomes. and while the chancellor, jeremy hunt, is pleased to see inflation descending, this does not imply he will automatically have lots more money to spend on public services or tax cuts in next week's autumn statement, given that weakness of the wider economy and the government's self—imposed fiscal rules. it's fair to say most economists would regard today's inflation figures as good news, but not news that implies this big squeeze on our living standards is over. you heard there how prices are rising more slowly — they're still going up, though. in the last 12 months, we've been following a community in knowsley on merseyside to see how their lives have been affected by the rising cost of living. it's the second most deprived borough in england. last month, we went to see how linda, gary and steph were gearing up for another winter of tight household budgets. i first came to knowsleyjust before christmas last year. here, 25% of people are income—deprived, living on low incomes, with the area scoring well below the national average for young people in education or employment. and since 2015, life expectancy here has decreased. gary runs the new hutte centre, which recently celebrated its 60th birthday. it's a hub for the community and operates a social supermarket, providing everyday staples at heavily reduced prices to those in need. demand is the highest they've ever experienced. so we would usually see summer, the warmer months, the demand slightly ease, ready for the winter months' increase. we've maintained that same level of support during the summer months that we did last winter. so inflation isn't rising at the same rate as it was. energy costs have come down a bit. why do you say people are finding it harder? they don't have the disposable income that they would have had in the past. utility costs have gone through the roof. food costs have gone through the roof. just those two things alone, for me, make a massive difference. what do you think is going to happen this winter, then? staffing costs have gone up. the cost to stock these shelves has gone up. so how can we be expected to meet double the demand on the same level of support that we've got? and now, we are being expected to go back to pre—pandemic systems of applying for the funding. ie, you're in competition with other organisations and you all have to compete for funding, and some of you will lose out. absolutely. what does this mean, then, for people round here, people in this community? so, they will go without. last time we met pensioner linda, she told us she was limiting her heating to an hour a day and skipping meals, but her pension has recently gone up. so compared to a year ago, say, how would you say your finances are now? it's still level and balanced out, even with the pension, because the bills are just going up and up. and all the food, although it's gone up, with some ridiculous prices, it's not going to come down. everything that goes up doesn't come down. and we know there's going to be increases with the gas and the leccy and everything. last time you and i chatted, linda, you said you were only having one