prices. when prices go up, the poor cannot afford them. as borisjohnson arrives on a visit to india — the government will try to delay a house of commons vote on whether to investigate him for misleading mps about lockdown parties the two candidates wanting to be president of france have gone head to head in their only televised debate — ahead of the final vote on sunday the bbc has discovered evidence that a major conservative party donor was a director of a company secretly owned by a russian oligarch close to vladimir putin. and the queen is 96 today — this photo of her has been released to mark the occasion hello and welcome if you're watching in the uk or around the world. the russian president, vladimir putin, has described his operation in the besieged ukrainian port of mariupol as a success. the city is under russian control, apart from a power plant where around 2,000 ukrainian fighters are still holed up. ukraine say four buses carrying evacuees from mariupol have left the besieged city — far fewer than hoped. officials say there will be further attempts to get people out today. in his latest address the ukrainian president, volodymyr zelensky, said he believed the west was developing a better understanding of what military support his country needed. mariupol lies at the sourthern most edge of a region known as the donbas. gaining full control of the port city would enable russia to move troops and supplies northwards far more freely. that would help russia's objective of extending its control over the donbas region. the azovstal steel works — a massive industrial plant in mariupol — has been the last centre of ukrainian resistance in the city — as simonjones reports. much of mariupol has been destroyed by weeks of relentless russian bombardment. some civilians have been able to leave the city but the evacuation has not gone according to plan. it was hoped several thousand would be allowed out but in the end, the number was part of europe. the deputy prime minister of ukraine said the exit corridor did not work properly, accusing russia of a lack of control over its troops. translation: we need a break after the shelling, after this nightmare, we had been hiding in basements for 30 days. ukrainian officials say they are ready to travel to mariupol for talks on the evacuation of further civilians military personnel. translation: the situation in the east and south of our country remains as severe as possible. the occupiers will not give up trying to gain at least some victory for themselves through a new, large—scale offensive. it is too late for this woman, the 91—year—old survived the nazi occupation of mariupol in the second world war. the foreign ministry of ukraine said she died earlier this month in a basement, freezing, pleading for water. russia has released this footage which it says it shows the successful test flight of a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. president putin says it would make those who threaten his country think twice. but any negotiations with the kremlin are doomed to failure according to boris johnson, who says dealing with the russian president is like bargaining with a crocodile when it has got your legs in its jaws so the fighting continues. the us president has paid tribute to the ukrainian people resisting the onslaught. i knew they were tough and people resisting the onslaught. i knew they were tough and proud but i tell you what, they are tougher and more proud than i thought, i am amazed what they are doing. he said more weapons _ amazed what they are doing. he said more weapons and _ amazed what they are doing. he said more weapons and munitions - amazed what they are doing. he said more weapons and munitions were i more weapons and munitions were getting through to the ukrainian army but there are fierce fights ahead in a war in which there is no end in sight. simonjones, bbc news. earlier, i spoke to our correspondent in lviv, joe inwood about president putin's comments. in the last few minutes it has urged president putin has ordered his troops not to storm the steel plant, the place as you said earlier where the last ukrainian defenders of mariupol are hold up and we were expecting a really bloody battle to take it, the defenders there are outnumbered ten to one, they were speaking to the bbc yesterday and said they were on their last days if not hours, running short of food and ammunition but president putin has said they do not need to storm the plant and instead they can seal it off so what we are moving from is an all out asault, to something of a siege. exactly what this is going to do to the dynamics in the rest of the country, that is going to be crucial. it had been said that russia needed to take mariupol so it could remove troops from there and continue its assault on the east of the country, in the donbas. if they are not going to fully take the city but simply put pparts of it under siege, can they withdraw the troops? what happens then? this is a significant development, the implications of which will be crucial over the coming weeks. we will get reaction to those claims in a moment. what about the people, the civilians? over 100,000 still in the city, there are reportedly up to 1000 people actually in this steel plant? yes, we understand a lot of those people are the families and friends of the soldiers who are fighting there. there have been requests to have a humanitarian corridor to get them out, yesterday there was talk for the wider city of getting up to 6000 people out by a humanitarian corridors, in the end four buses made it out, nothing close to the numbers who would like to leave, those would be civilians, the elderly, women and children, they are on their way to zaporizhzhia inside ukrainian territory, south of dnipro, if we are going to see the full humanitarian corridor demanded and requested by the deputy prime minister of ukraine, we will find out. they have said they are open to negotiations without preconditions but we have heard that before and it has failed to materialise. president putin has been speaking this morning. let's have a listen to what he had to say. translation: i consider the proposed storming i of the industrial zone unnecessary. i order you to cancel it. this is a case where we must think especially about preserving the lives and health of our soldiers and officers. there is no need to climb into these catacombs and crawl underground through these industrial facilities. block off this industrial area so that even a fly cannot escape. once again, invite all those who have not yet laid down their arms to do so. the russian side guarantees their lives and their dignified treatment. of course, taking control of such an important centre in the south as mariupol is a success. congratulations to you. general sir richard barrons — formerly one of the british army's most senior commanders — gave me his assessment. i think we should recognise the battle for mariupol in a military sense was coming to a conclusion, the ukrainian defenders in the steelworks were going to be really difficult to defeat, at enormous cost to both sides. but that defence was no longer really relevant to who controls the city and the roads that run through the city that now connect russia through the coast to crimea. and we should recognise that we are on the eve of the russian orthodox easter. so the announcement today allows president putin to announce some success and it is genuine success from the russian perspective, on the eve of this religious festival. and it allows the military to not expend much more resource on a battle for the steelworks which was militarily irrelevant to turn to what matters now, which is the battle for the donbas. in terms of success ahead of the orthodox easter celebrations, are you saying they have got mariupol, pretty much, it doesn't matter about the steel plant? i think from a military perspective, the battle for the steelworks was essentially irrelevant. so long as russia is capable of connecting crimea to russia through the city, and they are. ok. in terms of who has the upper hand right now, what is your view? i think it's very finely balanced indeed and we need to be clear, there really is no script, no guaranteed outcome either way on what happens next, and the focus will be on the donbas, particularly the north—eastern bit where russia will try to encircle ukraine, the military, to get behind their well prepared positions. if the russians are good enough to do that, concentrate force in the way they are trying to do, that will be a significant success for russia. if the ukrainians hold them off and so far, and it's very early stages, but so far, they are, then the russian military will again, for the second time in this war, at a significant level, have been held back. i think at great cost, in which case we are likely to be in a very difficult stalemate, i think. how much of the east of ukraine, the donbas region, does president putin want to take control of? when this phase of the war opened on the 24th of february, russia occupied about one third of the donbas, donbas is about the size of switzerland. and the front now is about 300 miles long. the russian ambition is to take the whole of the donbas so the remaining two thirds, and that would constitute a significant military success if they were able to do that. then they would have crimea. mariupol, linking them to the whole of the donbas region. do you think that would be enough for president putin? i do not think even president putin really knows and we have no way ofjudging what is going on in his head. i think if the russian activities in the donbas produced a quick and relatively easy success, in other words, they beached the ukrainians quickly and at low cost, they might be more ambitious, they might turn again on 0desa, they may try and advance towards the dnipro river, which cuts ukraine, east and west, in half, and they may think about putting kyiv under more pressure. if the fight for the donbas is as hard as i think it probably will be, they may find it is a bit of a pyrrhic victory, they may take territory at a cost which means they cannot do very much more. and everyone will recognise that ukraine is never going to accept its lost territory in this way, and those of us that support ukraine will take the same view. which means fighting could go on for years and years, like it has since 2014 in that part of ukraine? yes, there is no calendar attached to this war that says it is going to be quick and decisive, and most wars like this end up in a stalemate where both sides have neither want nor lost but are in a state of some exhaustion. so we should anticipate what will probably be the worst case, which is a bloody, attritional battle in the donbs which is not really decisive, that locks down into a stalemate where the war could go on for years, even at a lower level, until something else happens. the world is facing a human catastrophe from the food crisis arising from russia s invasion of ukraine. these are the words of the president of the world bank. david malpass warned that record rises in the cost of food are pushing hundreds of millions into poverty and lower nutrition. on a year—over—year basis, we're looking at maybe 37% increase in food prices. that's huge. and it's particularly focused, magnified, for the poor, because they spend more of their money or what little money they may have, it goes to food. and so when the food prices go up, it means they eat less and have less money for anything else, for schooling. and so that means that it's really an unfair kind of crisis. it hits the poorest, the hardest. the british businessman richard branson is calling for western democracies to reduce their dependence on russian oil and gas, to try to help end the conflict in ukraine. he's calling for all western democracies to reduce use of oil and gas by 10% over the next 12 months, compared to the previous pre—covid year. joining me now is entrepreneur, sir richard branson. what is it that you say it should happen and why? we what is it that you say it should happen and why?— what is it that you say it should happen and why? we are a group of business leaders _ happen and why? we are a group of business leaders and _ happen and why? we are a group of business leaders and we _ happen and why? we are a group of business leaders and we feel- happen and why? we are a group of business leaders and we feel it - happen and why? we are a group of business leaders and we feel it is i business leaders and we feel it is time for industry to speak out on this, it is not time for neutrality and we are all with one voice, as we do, feel that the russian invasion is completely unprovoked and unacceptable. so we have basically met to try to decide what needs to be done. the first thing we feel needs to be done as a massive increase in military aid, nato governments should immediately transfer all the weapons ukraine has asked for. and then the second thing is that your �*s dependence on russian oil, gas and coal, we have just got to stop that dependence immediately and we have come up with a number of plans to show that can be done immediately without great pain for european countries or consumers. pain for european countries or consumes-— pain for european countries or consumers. ~ ., �* , ., ~ consumers. and don't you think if it was that simple, _ consumers. and don't you think if it was that simple, they _ consumers. and don't you think if it was that simple, they would - consumers. and don't you think if it was that simple, they would have i was that simple, they would have done it by now? $5 was that simple, they would have done it by now?— was that simple, they would have done it by now? as many years as a businessman _ done it by now? as many years as a businessman and _ done it by now? as many years as a businessman and entrepreneur, - done it by now? as many years as a businessman and entrepreneur, i i businessman and entrepreneur, i think sometimes business leaders can see things and be able to act more quickly sometimes than politicians. i mean, our plan is very simple, and it is similarto i mean, our plan is very simple, and it is similar to what has already been published. that we take 2.7 million barrels of oil out of the system by doing things like reducing the speed limit for cars and lorries, by cutting back air pollution slightly, eating slightly, and so on. that would, by freeing up 2.7 million barrels a day of oil, that completely covers all the imports that germany makes from russia and other countries, take from russia and it leaves a lot over. the benefit of that is that prices will come down and inflation will come down. quite dramatically. and so basically, there is a way of doing it that is a win for ukraine, it means billions are not going to russia, a win for the consumer because the small sacrifice of driving a little bit slower orjust turning the thermostat down by say, i turning the thermostat down by say, 1 degrees, that is going to save their money in their pocket right away. their money in their pocket right awa . �* ,., their money in their pocket right awa.�* y their money in their pocket right awa.�* , ., , away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the ou reall away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the you really think _ away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the you really think it's _ away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the you really think it's as _ away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the you really think it's as simple - away. i'm so sorry to interrupt. the you really think it's as simple as - you really think it's as simple as that, if everyone across europe particularly countries like germany, austria, those still buying russian oil and gas because they say if we cut it off immediately which is what you are calling for, the german finance minister said yesterday, car production plants would have to shut, unemployment would rise, if it is literally about people turning down the thermostat and driving more slowly, it cannot be as simple as that, can it?— that, can it? this has to happen throughout— that, can it? this has to happen throughout iea _ that, can it? this has to happen throughout iea countries, - that, can it? this has to happen throughout iea countries, so, . that, can it? this has to happen l throughout iea countries, so, you know, the british people would have to play their part, all europeans would have to play their part and other iea countries like australia would need to play their part. but if we drive ten miles an hour less and to own or two of the other things the iea has suggested, we will have plenty of oil to be able to compensate germany for the loss of their imports and we can do this literally overnight. the iea have said within a couple of months, there will be plenty of spare oil for germany and for other countries that import russian oil. so it is simple. a lot of answers to a lot of problems are simple if you can sit back and look at it. and what we are urging governments to do is to implement the iea report in full. and for citizens to realise that this can be their part in fighting this can be their part in fighting this war. and they will save money and a lot of money because the overall oil price will collapse, it will be also a very good answer to 0pec by taking 2.7 million barrels out of the system. share opec by taking 2.7 million barrels out of the system.— 0pec by taking 2.7 million barrels out of the system. are you saying, claimin: , out of the system. are you saying, claiming, that— out of the system. are you saying, claiming, that by _ out of the system. are you saying, claiming, that by doing _ out of the system. are you saying, claiming, that by doing that, - claiming, that by doing that, european economies won't be damaged at all? i’m european economies won't be damaged at all? �* , european economies won't be damaged atall?�* _ ., european economies won't be damaged atall? �* _ ., ., at all? i'm saying by doing that, euro ean at all? i'm saying by doing that, european economies _ at all? i'm saying by doing that, european economies and - at all? i'm saying by doing that, i european economies and western economies generally will benefit from it because there will be a collapse in the oil price. america just released, i cannot remember exactly what it was, but they are saying half a million barrels extra per day. that helps. but if you can actually effectively find 2.7 million barrels by all of us just changing our habits slightly, that will bring oil back in a dramatic way. and it. billions going into the pockets are put in every day. so i would urge governments to read the iea report and implement it in full. ok, iea report and implement it in full. 0k, thank you for talking to us. sir richard branson. the uk government is attempting to delay a vote which was due to take place today on whether borisjohnson should be investigated over claims he misled parliament. ministers now say the decision should wait until inquiries into lockdown parties by the metropolitan police and the civil servant sue gray have finished. 0ur political correspondent ione wells has more. i have been repeatedly assured, since these allegations have emerged, that there was no party... ..and that no covid rules were broken. these are words that have come back to haunt the prime minister, telling mps last year, that covid rules in number 10 were followed at all times, and that he'd been repeatedly assured there were no parties during lockdown. reporter: are there more fines coming, prime minister? - after he, his wife, and the chancellor were fined last week for covid breaches, opposition mps have accused him of misleading parliament — a resigning offence under government rules. the prime minister has apologised and said it hadn't occurred to him the event he was fined for — a gathering in the cabinet room on his birthday before a meeting — was a breach of the rules. labour wanted a committee of cross—party mps to investigate if he misled mps. they scheduled a vote today on whether that investigation should happen. a number of tory mps were planning to vote for one with labour, or not vote at all. some feared being accused of blocking an investigation, or defending borisjohnson ahead of may's local elections. but the government have squashed that with a new plan. they want mps to vote on whether to push that decision until after the police investigation is finished, and the civil servant sue gray's report into government lockdown parties has been published. tory mps will be ordered to back this delay. i'm confident that when the prime minister said he was assured that no rules were broken, i'm sure that is the case. i don't think that constitutes misleading parliament by any means. but i do think all of this comes back to, what sensible person would want to jump the gun rather than wait for the metropolitan police investigation and that sue gray report? it means after the police and sue gray have finished investigating, mps will then get the vote on whether the prime minister should be investigated again over whether he misled mps. this investigation should take place now, and we are absolutely clear about that. why? because it should be fairly straightforward. the prime minister should come clean with the public. while this means borisjohnson has staved off another investigation for now, mps could still vote for one in future. all the while more evidence from sue gray is yet to be made public. ione wells, bbc news. borisjohnson has been speaking to the media in the last hour during his official visit to india about the partygate vote — but first he was asked about the situation in ukraine, and what he will be discussing in his talks with india's prime minister narendra modi. well, i have already raised ukraine, as you can imagine, with prime minister modi and actually, if you look at what the indians have said, they were very strong in their condemnation of the atrocities in bucha. as i think everybody understands, india and russia have historically very different relationship perhaps than russia and the uk have had over the last couple of decades. we have to reflect that reality but clearly, i will be talking about it to narendra modi. but what i will be focusing on today are the incredible opportunities to deepen this partnership. i don't think at any time in my political lifetime has the living bridge between the uk and india really been so strong. and just on this trip, we have got about £1 billion worth of investment coming from india into the uk. they are the second biggest investor in the uk. that investment alone is going to drive 11,000 jobs. we are hoping to complete another free trade agreement with india by the end of the year, by the autumn. and already, you are seeing products like uk medical supplies, british apples, getting ready to come onto the indian market, even before the deal is done. and you know, just look around you. this is a sort of example, a living, breathing incarnation of the umbilicus between the uk and india, india and the uk. this is a world leading factory, 60,000 diggers a year coming from india, exported to 110 countries with british technology. so you are going to i approach the ukraine question very gently but india - is very reliant on russian energy, russian weaponry. is there an opportunityj there, are you going to say to prime minister modi| for britain, for british arms manufacturers? we are both... the interesting thing is, both our countries are excessively reliant on foreign hydrocarbons and we need to move away from that together. and so one of the things we are talking about is what we can do to build partnerships on hydrogen, on electric vehicles, on offshore wind, on all the ways that you can reduce the cost of energy for people with green technology, and so there is a big opportunity there. but as you rightly say, there is also the opportunity for us to deepen our security and defence partnership. as you know, the uk is making an indo pacific tilt in our integrated review of our national defence and security strategy. that is the right thing to do, given the huge portion of the world economy that is, the growth of the world economy that can be found in this area. and india and the uk both share anxieties about autocracies around the world. we are both democracies. and we want to stick together. you talk warmly about| india being the world's largest democracy but it is - an increasingly authoritarian one. plenty of concern here about press freedom, | protection of minorities, bulldozers, you know, i we are in a bulldozer factory, being used i to destroy the homes of muslims in several states. are you going to raise - these issues when you see modi? we always raise the difficult issues, of course we do. but the fact is that india is a country of 1.35 billion people and it is democratic. it is the world's largest democracy and an astonishing creation. it is going places very fast. the opportunity for us to deepen our partnership, deepen our friendship and our ties is enormous. we are here in gujarat, in the west of india. i think there are about 1.6 million gujaratis in the uk alone. there is a massive, massive interconnection between our countries. you are a long way from - westminster today, where the lockdown breaking party saga will again dominate the day. i you have ordered your mp5 to delay a possible - investigation into whether you misled parliament. i it is a really serious matter. why are you kicking this into the long grass? - iam very... let me just say, i am very keen for every possible form of scrutiny. and the house of commons can do whatever it wants to do, but all i would say is that i don't think that that should happen until the investigation is completed, and that is my only point. i have said this time and again, let's get... let's let the investigators do their stuff and then knock this thing on the head. you are committed to allowing a vote once the sue gray report has come i out and once the met have decided how many fines i they are going to dish out, | parliament will have a vote on whether to allow the privileges committee to look at _ whether you misled parliament? that is fine but all i'm saying is that i think people should have the full facts, and in the meantime, what i want to do is get on with the job. here we are in a gigantic newjcb factory, as i say, in gujarat, and an absolutely amazing example of the... what is the word i want? the synergy, the synthesis between uk technology and indian technology. what i am going to be talking about with narendra modi is all the ways in which we are going to develop that partnership. there is a big appetite for that on either side. for mps who are discussing your. probity this afternoon in the house of commons and who are saying you did mislead them, - with all the statements you made as these revelations came out, i what do you say to them? the answer to that straight question, did you misleadl the house of commons, - knowingly or inadvertently? of course not. it is up to them. they must do whatever they want. that is their prerogative. i want to focus on the amazing opportunities that i think there are in the partnership that is developing between the uk and india. and i spoke just now to an indian company that is interested in building, helping us to build yet more offshore wind farms at a cracking rate and that i think is something that is vastly... which could help us build, you know, add to the gigawatts we need faster than probably any other solution. that is the kind of thing, helping to reduce the price of energy, helping to make energy more affordable, that is the kind of thing... more important than parties, i think you are trying to say, i more important than party—gate? i am just going to say to you humbly that i think that is what people want me to be focusing on right now but for my friends in westminster, they must get on with their votes. that's fine. hello, this is bbc news with victoria derbyshire. the headlines. president putin has claimed victory in his assault on the ukrainian city of mariupol — as ukraine demands russian forces let civilians leave. separately, the russian foreign ministry calls on the uk to stop supllying weapons to ukraine translation: of course, taking | control of such an important centre in the south as mariupol is a success. congratulations to you. there's a warning of mass poverty around the world, caused by the war. the president of the world bank says rising food prices could mean millions go hungry. as borisjohnson arrives on a visit to india, he is talking about various trade negotiations he hopes to have with india. meanwhile, the governorate is trying to delay a house of commons vote over whether to investigate in four claims he misled mps about lockdown parties. the two candidates wanting to be president of france have gone head to head in their only televised debate — ahead of the final vote on sunday. the bbc has discovered evidence that a major conservative party donor was a director of a company secretly owned by a russian oligarch close to vladimir putin. and the queen is 96 today. this photo of her has been released to mark the occasion. the french president emmanuel macron has clashed with his far—right rival, marine le pen, in a tv debate ahead of sunday's election. the two candidates went head—to—head on issues like the cost of living, russia and immigration. 0ur paris correspondent lucy williamson reports. after weeks of sparring from a distance, it's hand—to—hand combat. the first time in this election that emmanuel macron and marine le pen have fought face to face. bonsoir, marine le pen. bonsoir. with just two campaigning days left, and a quarter of voters saying the debate will shape their decision, they've been waiting for this. first up, the big one — rising prices and spending power, ms le pen's favourite subject. her slogan — give the people their money back. mr macron lectures her on why her economic plans won't work. and then goes for the jugular — her relationship with russia. "you're dependent on vladimir putin," he says. "when you speak to russia, you speak to your banker." "he knows perfectly well that what he's saying is false," le pen replies. "he's hosted putin in versailles." but what do voters make of it? across the country, voters from all sides, many still undecided, were watching the drama unfold. we see a very different debate from 2017. it appears that marine le pen is much more well prepared than in 2017. she's very calm. she decided to not attack the president, emmanuel macron. and from my point of view, emmanuel macron seems a bit unstable. translation: so far, - it's a very balanced debate. i'm biased, but the arguments are good and they may change my mind. translation: she's much better than last time, - but she's still too weak- in comparison with macron. he's far stronger on every subject. marine le pen's job was to show that she was prepared for power. mr macron's task was to show that she was not, without looking too arrogant and superior himself. around ten points separate them in the polls. four days separates one of them from power. lucy williamson, bbc news, paris. 0ver now to paris and our correspondent hugh schofield — so what's the instant verdict of voters in the polls that were taken after the debate? well, in general, i would say the verdict is that macron came out ahead. but marine le pen advanced her own cause because she did not fail. if you remember, five years ago, she had this appalling experience in the equivalent debate where she just lost it and lost control of the subject matter in terms of laughing hysterically and it was really a terrible trauma for her and she has never once watched the tape, it was so traumatic for her. she got over that and she was a different kind of figure. you could see the preparation that she had done had made a lot of difference. but if you were looking into the kind of hard detail of the arguments, and that of course is what this should be all about, i think he came out on top. he had the strong arguments and was once again showing himself to be the master of detail, which we know him to be. but as a rider to that, not everybody watches these debates or is following exactly closely and meticulously who was right in which subject, it is about impressions and she made her basic point about being close to the french, about caring more about the poor and the needy than the rich president in the elysee palace. she made that point so i think she will have comforted and given hope to her supporters. i am not sure she will have one that many people over, though.- am not sure she will have one that many people over, though. thank you, huh many people over, though. thank you, hugh schofield, _ many people over, though. thank you, hugh schofield, in _ many people over, though. thank you, hugh schofield, in paris. _ across ukraine's kyiv region, efforts have begun to clear the countless pieces of unexploded ammunition left behind after fierce fighting. the main hospital there says it's receiving increasing numbers of patients who've touched or stepped on mines and shells. 0ur correspondent anna fosterjoined one de—mining patrol on the outskirts of kyiv. the russians have gone, but danger still lurks here. countless pieces of unexploded ammunition litter the kyiv suburbs. mines, shells, grenades, both fired by russian forces and used by ukrainian soldiers for defence. more than 80,000 have been neutralised so far. this is what is left of dmytro's work van. he was standing next to it when it drove over a mine. he will need two years of facial surgery to repair the damage. translation: it was noise. i can't understand what happened. big noise in my head and ears and ifell. for his wife svetlana, it was a moment of fear. she thought their small children would be left without a father. translation: it is very hard and scary, very scary. - we are afraid for our children, our husbands and our brothers. it is frightening. the retreating russian soldiers left mines behind them designed to maim and kill. this is a track, you can see where a tank ploughed through this forest and just beyond where that soldier is, there is a small piece of green cloth which marks where they found an anti—tank mine. they have told me it is damaged, so it's in a volatile state and could go off at any time, so they need to destroy it now in a controlled detonation. just a single month of fighting leaves a devastating legacy. it could take a whole year to clear the ordinance away. that's one reason why people are being told not to come home just yet. translation: this area is not safe because there are many _ unexploded shells and ammunition and weapons. as you can see, there are trip wires here and other dangerous explosive surprises. now a huge task lies ahead to make these towns safe enough for people and life to return. anna foster, bbc news, kyiv. the bbc�*s discovered evidence that a major tory party donor was a director of a company secretly owned by a russian oligarch close to president putin. lubov chernukhin says she does not recall consenting in writing to being a director of the company. the oligarch, suleiman kerimov — who's since been sanctioned by the eu and the uk — has previously denied any connection with mrs chernukhin. 0ur economics correspondent andy verity reports. lubov chernukhin has donated large sums to the conservatives, to play tennis with david cameron and borisjohnson, and £135,000 for a night out with theresa may and members of the cabinet. she is reportedly on a secret advisory board of ultra—wealthy tory donors with access to party leaders. her husband, vladimir chernukhin, is a businessman and former deputy finance minister who fled russia after being dismissed by president putin in 200a. two years ago, we revealed how he had been secretly funded with $8 million by a russian oligarch from putin's inner circle. the oligarch, now subject to uk, us and eu sanctions is suleiman kerimov. he denied having any dealings with mrs chernukhin whatsoever. now, in a leak of documents to the bbc and the international consortium of investigativejournalists, new information has come to light which raises questions about that. it's to do with the purchase of a property in north london, now under new ownership, bought back in 2005. we've seen leaked documents showing how secretive offshore companies hid the people involved in the purchase of this house back then. they appear to show that mrs chernukhin, as she now is, became a director of a company called radlett estates limited, and we've seen another document that shows the owner of that company was the russian oligarch, suleiman kerimov. mrs chernukhin became a director after the property was bought. 0ne leaked document is signed lubov golubeva — her name before she married vladimir in 2007. lubov chernukhin first said through her lawyers, "mrs chernukhin has never been a director of radlett" and then, when we said we had seen the document, she says she does not recall consenting in writing to being a director and suggested it may be a forgery. is forgery a possibility? we asked an anti—money—laundering expert. well, it might be conceivable, but i think in this particular case we have documents that show that she was present at a meeting where her continued directorship was being discussed and at that meeting she resigned as a director, so i think it stretches the imagination to suggest that her identity was stolen. campaigners say it underlines why the system of political donations has to be much more transparent. any politician or political party should, well, it ought, to have a clear understanding of the nature of their benefactors. that means conducting due diligence over those who sponsor their activities, not just looking at whether the funds they receive are lawful, but ensuring, you know, that they are exercising good judgment in receiving them in the first place. mr kerimov did not respond to questions about the property and his relationship to the chernukhins. the conservative party said all donations are properly and transparently declared to the electoral commission and comply fully with the law. andy verity, bbc news. well, as we are reporting, borisjohnson is on a two—day visit to india hoping to secure a trade dealfor the uk. lesley batchelor is the director of export boot camps and an expert in international trade. she is formerly the director general of the institute of trade. shejoins us now. thank you forjoining us. what do you want from india in the uk and what does india want from us? well. what does india want from us? well, i think we want _ what does india want from us? well, i think we want some _ what does india want from us? well, i think we want some sort _ what does india want from us? well, i think we want some sort of - what does india want from us? -ii i think we want some sort of parity. we need to make sure that everything we are doing is benefiting both parties. i think the biggest thing we have at the moment of course is the disparity within the labour costs so that means anything you can make in india is going to be a lot cheaper than made here. i think we have got a few issues around obviously textiles are going to become more accessible for us and i think we also have to remember that we have the car industry that we probably want to point try and protect in some way and we have to be very cautious of how our manufacturing industry is impacted by any of these deals that go through. it is worth mentioning that we are working towards an interim pact. this is not the full free trade agreement as yet. ila. pact. this is not the full free trade agreement as yet. no, because that takes ages- _ trade agreement as yet. no, because that takes ages. it _ trade agreement as yet. no, because that takes ages. it does _ trade agreement as yet. no, because that takes ages. it does indeed - trade agreement as yet. no, because that takes ages. it does indeed come | that takes ages. it does indeed come et. we that takes ages. it does indeed come yet- we only — that takes ages. it does indeed come yet. we only started _ that takes ages. it does indeed come yet. we only started negotiating - that takes ages. it does indeed come yet. we only started negotiating in i yet. we only started negotiating in january so this is very fast. —— it does indeed, yeah. january so this is very fast. -- it does indeed, yeah.— january so this is very fast. -- it does indeed, yeah. how many trade deals does india _ does indeed, yeah. how many trade deals does india have _ does indeed, yeah. how many trade deals does india have been - does indeed, yeah. how many trade deals does india have been other i deals does india have been other countries? i deals does india have been other countries? . , deals does india have been other countries?— deals does india have been other countries? ., , , , ., countries? i was looking this up and the have countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 — countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 to _ countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 to date _ countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 to date but _ countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 to date but since - countries? i was looking this up and they have 16 to date but since 2015, j they have 16 to date but since 2015, they have 16 to date but since 2015, they have 16 to date but since 2015, they have only signed one. modi has a very ambiguous approach to trade deals. i think he is beginning to recognise more and more that he did not sign the regional comprehensive economic partnership, that was the world's biggest trade deal that went over this year, it would have been a huge win for them but they decided not to. ~ , . , huge win for them but they decided not to. ~ , .,, . i huge win for them but they decided not to-_ i don't - huge win for them but they decided not to._ i don't really not to. why was that? i don't really know, i'm — not to. why was that? i don't really know, i'm sorry- — not to. why was that? i don't really know, i'm sorry. that's _ not to. why was that? i don't really know, i'm sorry. that's fine, - not to. why was that? i don't really know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i- know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i don't come — know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i don't come either _ know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i don't come either but - know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i don't come either but i - know, i'm sorry. that's fine, i don't come either but i was i don't come either but i was wondering if you did come interesting.— wondering if you did come interestinu. , . , ., , interesting. they are very cautious about how to _ interesting. they are very cautious about how to operate _ interesting. they are very cautious about how to operate within - interesting. they are very cautious about how to operate within trade | about how to operate within trade deals. trade deals are often very useful to protect markets and what is happening within your own country, to make sure that you are actually benefiting both parties. theyjust recently have done a trade deal with... an interim pact, theyjust recently have done a trade dealwith... an interim pact, i should say with australia because australian wines were getting something like 150% excise duties on them. that is really worthwhile reciprocation, or at least, certainly for the australians, so that opens up the indian market. it is about opening up markets and free circulation and obviously, if we get towards a trade deal, it will also be about respecting each other�*s intellectual property which from our perspective, because we are great designers and engineers, it is worth having that sunk into any trade deal going forward. there is a lot to consider when you are doing this kind of deal, obviously. and consider when you are doing this kind of deal, obviously. and also, i don't know — kind of deal, obviously. and also, i don't know if— kind of deal, obviously. and also, i don't know if this _ kind of deal, obviously. and also, i don't know if this is _ kind of deal, obviously. and also, i don't know if this is a _ don't know if this is a consideration when it comes to these kind of business deals, tell me what it is like from your experience, india has not for example condemns the war in ukraine. britain has helped massively with lethal aid and non—lethal aid. helped massively with lethal aid and non—lethalaid. is helped massively with lethal aid and non—lethal aid. is that the kind of thing that comes up when you are chatting about trade? it is thing that comes up when you are chatting about trade?— chatting about trade? it is an interesting — chatting about trade? it is an interesting question - chatting about trade? it is an interesting question because | chatting about trade? it is an - interesting question because there are political elements to everything you are doing but they do tend to revolve around trade. but having said that, you know, we all appreciate that when you are negotiating these things, it is about textiles, defence and agriculture. and normally pharmaceuticals. these are the biggest negotiating points that normally come through. we have got to remember that defence brings in this kind of behaviour and licensing that would go through. i think for a full trade deal to go ahead, it would be brought up, obviously. thank you forjoining us. a man who raped and murdered a british woman in south africa eight years ago will be sentenced today. andrea imbayarwo fled the country after killing christine robinson but was eventually tracked down by the victim's niece. christine and her husband daniel moved to south africa in 2002 to open a game park in limpopo. daniel died in 2012 but christine decided to stay, and continue to run a guest lodge on the park. in 2014, christine was murdered by mr imbayarwo. he worked at the game park as a gardener, and subsequently fled to zimbabwe. christine's niece lehanne sergison started a petition that year calling for action to track the killer down — and she also began searching for clues online. in 2018, lehanne discovered that andrea imbayarwo was active on dating sites and back living in south africa — so she created a false identity online and connected with some of his friends. lehanne then arranged a date with him injohannesburg, and contacted police in the hope they would organise a sting operation. however, imbayarwo became suspicious and began ignoring her messages. in 2020, lehanne posted on social media, declaring andrea imbayarwo as her aunt's killer — and that post was widely shared. one person who saw it was ian cameron, a crime victim advocate in south africa. he received a tip off from imbayarwo's employer, leading to his arrest a few hours later. imbayarwo was found guilty of rape and murder on tuesday and will be sentenced today. ian cameron, from the crime victim advocacy group action society, says it is not unusal for relatives of victims in south africa to have to pursue perpetrators. unfortunately, in many cases we are dependent in south africa on well organised community structures to combat crime because the south african police service aren't up to the task anymore. and i would like to applaud lehanne sergison for being an absolute hero in this specific case, because if it wasn't for her consistent following up not only with the south african police service, but even with the british home office, i don't think anything would have happened. she really stuck to it and kept on following up, unfortunately, with little or no help, both from the british foreign office and also from the south african government. and it was her post that eventually led to his arrest. to give you an idea, if we speak about rape first, south africa has about 153 confirmed rapes per day. that, and we know that only one in nine rapes are actually reported in the country. when it comes to convictions of rapes, it's less than 5% of successful convictions, when it comes to rape cases. murder is less than 10% conviction rate. so it's a massive success even after such a long time. many of these cases do take very, very long. i think the challenge with this was that andrea or andrew, as they knew him, then fled across the border. i remember on the day after the murder and the rape, was when i attended the scene. and it was haunting to hear that he had just literally vanished, and that he had threatened people, local people, while he was fleeing. nevertheless, obviously, with lehanne following up and her and i speaking almost annually, it helped a lot when she called me on the morning ofjuly 30th, 2020, it was exactly six years after the murder and the rape. and she then said she's very frustrated, because once again, because of police inaction, he had slipped through theirfingers. was there anything else we could do? and i then posted basically her post and added some details and said, does anyone know this man? and within minutes, i received a tip—off that someone knew where he was. and we followed it up. and myself, with a team of police members from a different region, went to that specific location that evening. and it was him. he was arrested then and he's been in detention ever since. he was sentenced a few days ago. and the verdict was a few days ago that he's guilty of rape and murder and he will be sentenced later today. the queen will celebrate her 96th birthday today at the sandringham estate in norfolk. this photo's been released to mark her birthday. it was taken at windsor castle and shows the queen with two fell ponies — one is reported to be called bybeck katie, and the other bybeck nightingale. it's a big yearfor queen — with all sorts of events coming up to mark her 70 years on the throne. as part those platinum jubilee celebrations, westminster abbey has come up with a new visitor experience, opening its roof to the public for the first time. 0ur royal correspondent daniela relph reports it is a familiar view of westminster abbey, secure at ground level. but visitors are about to be offered a different perspective, way up high. we followed the route to the roof, first through the diamond jubilee gallery to start the walk to the top. dress comfy, wear trainers, and make sure you have a head for heights. the walk up is quite tight. i'm around five foot eight, and i'm having to duck my head at times. but we're promised the view at the top will be worth it. and as you step out, it is spectacular. the panoramic views over london, and you're now up close to the detail of this historic building. for these great landmarks, finding a unique experience is always a challenge, something thatjust feels really special. this rooftop is westminster abbey's offer to visitors, seeing somewhere that few others have ever been. for me, it's the sense of calm that's up here. so, down parliament square, down on the floor of the abbey, can be very busy, full of visitors, full of life. but it's just nice to be above it and just have a look at things and take in the view. we're not a museum, so we don't have the ability to change our exhibition at all. so we want to sort of celebrate this summer, and show people a new side to the abbey. exploring every corner. the walk across the lead roof is careful, but straightforward, once you've made it up. if you dare, the look down gives that added sense of perspective. these would normally hover overhead. up here, you can look them in the eye. there is something magical about being in amongst the rooftops, seeing the shine of a cleaned up big ben. in this platinum jubilee year, it is an opportunity to view this historic building in a different way. daniela relph, bbc news, westminster abbey. the us government is appealing a florida judge's ruling that facemasks no longer need to be worn while using public transport. the mask mandate was lifted earlier this week after the judge ruled that the centers for disease control had overstepped its legal authority when it introduced the rule 1a months ago. after a two—year wait, brazil is getting ready to party, as the world famous carnival in rio kicks off this weekend. and the festivities are already under way. the mayor handed over the keys to the city to the rei momo — king of the carnival — marking the start of the first carnival since covid hit brazil. there'll be all—night parades tomorrow and saturday — with the samba—drome back on the city's iconic beach. if you want to get in touch, you are very welcome, on twitter and instagram and on tiktok. time for the weather next. hello again. we have had an easterly breeze in the last few days along the north sea coastline and if anything, that is going to continue over the next few days as well and get a bit stronger. what is happening today is that low pressure is drifting southwards. very unsettled actually across the mediterranean. we are pulling in that easterly flow. at times too across the north—east of england and parts of eastern and north—eastern scotland, we will see some low cloud, mist and fog lapping onshore. but there's a lot of dry weather and a fair bit of sunshine. a bit more cloud developing across parts of england and wales this afternoon with an isolated shower. but away from the east coast, temperatures 1a to about 18 degrees and it will feel quite pleasant in the sunshine. but if you have an allergy to tree pollen, the levels are high across much of the uk. through this evening and overnight, we start off with clear skies but it won't be long before more extensive cloud comes in from the north sea and starts to push westwards. at the same time, we have got low cloud, mist and fog drifting across northern and north—eastern scotland, thick enough for some drizzle. we could see a little bit of frost in sheltered glens but most of us tonight will be frost free. as we head into tomorrow, we start off with all this cloud across england and wales. it sinks a bit further south. there is a good chance it will break up along the english channel coastline with one or two showers. still the low cloud, mist and fog draped across parts of northern scotland and the northern isles but in between, there will be some sunshine. but we will have gusty winds tomorrow, noticeably so, gusting as much as 45 mph across the pennines, for example. as we head into the weekend, low pressure starts to push towards the near continent. we could see one or two showers coming our way as a result. if you look at the isobars, it is still going to be noticeably windy through this weekend. on saturday, there will be more cloud around than there is going to be on friday, and some spots of rain coming out of the cloud. drier and brighter across scotland and northern ireland with some sunshine, and still feeling cool along the north sea coastline. but temperatures down a touch anyway. at best, we are looking at 16 or 17 degrees. sunday still sees the potential for showers across the south—west and for the rest of us, a mixture of bright spells, sunshine and showers. in the afternoon, we are likely to see a few in scotland and northern england and still, that easterly breeze making it feel cool along the north sea coastline but as we push further west, top temperatures 17 or 18. the guards playing happy birthday for the queen on her 96th birthday. i apologise that we just cut the end of that, we thought it would start to bang on 11 but they went early with that, but it is of course the queen's 96 birthday today and the changing of the guard at windsor castle. 1st battalion coldstream guards that. the queen is not there today, she has gone to norfolk, to the sandringham estate, to spend her birthday there. it is understood she is actually staying out what it described as a modest farm in the grounds of the estate in norfolk. it is wood farm and actually where prince philip spent a lot of his time after he retired from royal duties in 2017, so that is where she has decided to go for her birthday. it is not known whether any other members of the royal family will be going there to spend time with her over her birthday. it is of course a big year for the over her birthday. it is of course a big yearfor the queen, this is the jubilee year, 70 years on the throne and there will be celebrations for that injune. there will also later on today be more celebrations for her birthday, at midday there will be a gun salute and we will bring you coverage at that, but this is the scene currently at windsor castle, the changing of the guards has been kicked off appropriately with happy birthday. the uk government is trying to delay a decision about a possible commons investigation into whether borisjohnson misled mps about lockdown parties. ministers say the decision should wait until inquiries into lockdown parties by the met and the civil servant sue gray have finished, while the opposition party, labour, says if conservative mps back the change to the timetable, they'll be complicit in a cover up. 0ur political correspondent ione wells has more. i have been repeatedly assured, since these allegations have emerged, that there was no party... ..and that no covid rules were broken. these are words that have gone back to haunt the prime minister, telling mps last year, that covid rules in number 10 were followed at all times, and that he'd been repeatedly assured there were no parties during lockdown. reporter: are there more fines coming, prime minister? - after he, his wife and the chancellor were fined last week for covid breaches, opposition mps have accused him of misleading parliament — a resigning offence under government rules. the prime minister has apologised and said it hadn't occurred to him the event he was fined for — a gathering in the cabinet room on his birthday before a meeting — was a breach of the rules. labour wanted a committee of cross—party mps to investigate if he misled mps. they scheduled a vote today on whether that investigation should happen. a number of tory mps were planning to vote for one with labour, or not vote at all. some feared being accused of blocking an investigation, or defending borisjohnson ahead of may's local elections. but the government have squashed that with a new plan. they want mps to vote on whether to push that decision until after the police investigation is finished, and the civil servant sue gray's report into government lockdown parties has been published. tory mps will be ordered to back this delay. i'm confident that when the prime minister said he was assured that no rules were broken, i'm sure that is the case. i don't think that constitutes misleading parliament by any means. but i do think all of this comes back to, what sensible person would want to jump the gun rather than wait for the metropolitan police investigation and that sue gray report? it means after the police and sue gray have finished investigating, mps will then get the vote on whether the prime minister should be investigated again over whether he misled mps. this investigation should take place now, and we are absolutely clear about that. why? because it should be fairly straightforward. the prime minister should come clean with the public. while this means borisjohnson has staved off another investigation for now, mps could still vote for one in future. all the while more evidence from sue gray is yet to be made public. ione wells, bbc news. borisjohnson has been speaking to media during his official visit to india. although a long way from westminster today, he was asked why he's seeking to delay a vote on an investigation into whether he misled mps about lockdown parties. iam very... let me just say, i am very keen for every possible form of scrutiny and the house of commons can do whatever it wants to do, but all i would say is that i don't think that that should happen until the investigation is completed and that is my only point. i have said this time and again, let's get... let's let the investigators do their stuff and then knock this thing on the head. you are committed to allowing a vote once the sue gray report has come i out and once the met have decided how many fines they are going - to dish out, parliament— will have a vote on whether to ask i the privileges committee to look. at whether you misled parliament? that is fine but i think what i'm saying is that people should have the full facts and in the meantime, what i want to do is get on with the job. here we are in a gigantic newjcb factory, as i say, in gujarat, and an absolutely amazing example of the... what is the word i want? the synergy, the synthesis between uk technology and indian technology. what i am going to be talking about with narendra modi is all the ways in which we are going to develop that partnership. there is a big appetite for that. mps are discussing your probity thisj afternoon in the house of commons and some are saying you did mislead them, with all the statements - you made as these revelations came out, what do you say to them? - i the answer to the straight question, i did you mislead the house of commons knowingly or inadvertently? of course not. it is up to them. they must do whatever they want. that is their prerogative. i want to focus on the amazing opportunities that i think there are in the partnership that is developing between the uk and india. and i spoke just now to an indian company that is interested in building, helping us to build yet more offshore wind farms at a cracking rate and that i think is something that is vastly... which could help us build, you know, add to the gigawatts we need faster than probably any other solution. that is the kind of thing, helping to reduce the price of energy, helping to make energy more affordable, that is the kind of thing... more important than parties, i think you are trying to say, i more important than partygate? i am just going to say to you humbly that i think that is what people want me to be focusing on right now but for my friends in westminster, they must get on with their votes. that's fine. borisjohnson in boris johnson in india. 0ur political correspondent david wallace lockhart is at westminster. that fate will be happening later at westminster. that is exactly what they are focusing on there, but what impact is this government amendment likely to have on the views of tory backbenchers and the whole process? i think it could potentially help kick the issue into the long grass a bit. of kick the issue into the long grass a bit. of course what the labour motion that will be debated this afternoon looks to do is to ask parliamentary committee, the privileges committee, a cross—party committee of mps, to investigate whether or not to johnson misled parliament, something we heard whether or not tojohnson misled parliament, something we heard him onceit parliament, something we heard him once it denied there, they would then be able to reduce reports, recommend sanctions and that is something mps could vote on. for that process to begin, even to take its first step, mps would have two, the majority, vote for it. let's remember, borisjohnson has a comfortable majority here in the house of commons, but perhaps where the concern was was around some mps who have not even called for the prime minister to go, backing the idea of him being subject to further investigation or even abstaining on the idea of that further investigation. what the government amendment here will seek to do is to say look, let's wait until the current investigations that are ongoing, let's remember there is a met police investigation, a report are still due from the senior civil servant to sue gray into what exactly happened in downing street, and other government buildings, while covid is one place, essentially the government motion says let's wait until those two bodies have back, we have all those facts and then let's revisit the issue and talk about whether that inquiry from the privileges committee in the house of commons should happen. 0f committee in the house of commons should happen. of course, what silly micro opposition parties are saying this is complicit in a cover—up if you hear what labour have to say on this and if it is kicked into the grass, labour will be targeting mps on the backbenchers who back that, saying they are trained to protect borisjohnson. —— what opposition parties are saying. boris johnson. -- what opposition parties are saying.— parties are saying. opposition arties parties are saying. opposition parties have _ parties are saying. opposition parties have been _ parties are saying. opposition parties have been very - parties are saying. opposition parties have been very vocal i parties are saying. opposition - parties have been very vocal about that, local elections are coming up and saying that tory mps seem to have forgotten the lessons of what happened with 0wen paterson when instead of going for a suspension, they tried to thought to be processed. that impacting on a tory mps? ., , processed. that impacting on a tory mps? . , , mps? that is completely right, when the owen paterson _ mps? that is completely right, when the owen paterson saga _ mps? that is completely right, when the owen paterson saga happened, l mps? that is completely right, when i the owen paterson saga happened, the the 0wen paterson saga happened, the standards committee, slightly different committee but similar one, recommended certain sanctions and then mps chose not to back that. that of course ended up potentially making the problem are quite worse for owen paterson, eventually him a standing down as an mp and not a particularly enjoyable saga that conservative mps. let's remember, the opposition parties know realistically they do not have the numbers to make this happen, they do not have the backing that we see borisjohnson refer to that committee for further investigation into whether or not he misled parliament, but what essentially they are hoping is to put those that conservative mps in that awkward position of having to, shortly before local elections, so they do not want that committee of mps to be looking into that. you can then about the labour party for example would be targeting the seats of those mps who backed borisjohnson, highlighting to local constituents what the mps have done and hoping that that will help them in those elections on the 5th of may. the government amendment here, i think they hope it strikes a balance between not seeing that investigation never happen, but simply saying it cannot happen now and that might be a palatable amendment to some of those wavering conservative mps.— conservative mps. thank you. this week has just _ conservative mps. thank you. this week hasjust confirmed _ conservative mps. thank you. this week has just confirmed that - conservative mps. thank you. this week has just confirmed that the i week has just confirmed that the debate will kick off at 11:30am, thatis debate will kick off at 11:30am, that is the commons and will be there at 1130 am when the debate begins. the russian president, vladimir putin, has described his operation in the besieged ukrainian port of mariupol as a success. the city is under russian control, apart from a industrial complex where around 2,000 ukrainian fighters are still holed up. mariupol lies at the southernmost edge of a region known as the donbas. gaining full control of the port city would enable russia to move troops and supplies northwards far more freely. that would help russia's objective of extending its control over the donbas region — highlighted here in yellow. the azovstal steelworks, a massive industrial plant in mariupol, has been the last centre of ukrainian resistance in the city, as simon jones reports. much of mariupol has been destroyed by weeks of relentless russian bombardment. some civilians have been able to leave the city, but the evacuation did not go according to plan. it was hoped several thousand would be allowed out. in the end, the number was farfewer. ukraine's deputy prime minister said an exit corridor did not work properly, accusing russia of a lack of control over its troops. translation: we need | a break after the shelling, after all this nightmare. we had been hiding in basements for 30 days. ukrainian officials say they are ready to travel to mariupol for talks on the evacuation of further civilians and military personnel. translation: the situation - in the east and south of our country remains as severe as possible. the occupiers will not give up trying to gain at least some victory for themselves through a new, la rge—scale offensive. it is too late for this woman — the 91—year—old survived the nazi occupation of mariupol in the second world war. ukraine's foreign ministry said she died earlier this month in a basement, freezing, pleading for water. russia has released this footage which it says shows the successful test flight of a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. president putin said it would make those who threaten his country think twice. but any negotiations with the kremlin are doomed to failure, according to borisjohnson, who says dealing with the russian president is like bargaining with a crocodile when it has got your legs in its jaws, so the fighting continues. the us president has paid tribute to the ukrainian people resisting the onslaught. i knew they were tough and proud, but i tell you what, they are tougher and more proud than i thought. i am amazed what they are doing with your help. he said more weapons and ammunition were getting through to the ukrainian army, but there are fierce fights ahead in a war in which there is no end in sight. simon jones, bbc news. president putin has been speaking this morning. let's have a listen to what he had to say. translation: i consider the proposed storming i of the industrial zone unnecessary. i order you to cancel it. this is a case where we must think especially about preserving the lives and health of our soldiers and officers. there is no need to climb into these catacombs and crawl underground through these industrial facilities. block off this industrial area so that even a fly cannot escape. once again, invite all those who have not yet laid down their arms to do so. the russian side guarantees their lives and their dignified treatment. of course, taking control of such an important centre in the south as mariupol is a success. congratulations to you. vladimir putin at speaking this morning. some breaking news on the new manager at manchester united. 0ur sports correspondent andy swissjoins us from old trafford. yes, confirmation that erik ten hag, who is currently the manager of eye acts in amsterdam will be the next manchester of —— manager of manchester of —— manager of manchester united. they have now confirmed he will be their next manager, they have released a statement saying in our conversations leading up to this appointment, we were deeply impressed in his drive and determination. erik ten hag said it was a great honour to be appointed and i'm hugely excited by the challenge ahead. he has achieved great success at ajax at the last few years. he has got them to two dutch league titles and he has done it all with a young team playing an exciting brand of football, but he faces a huge challenge at manchester united who have not won a trophy for the last five seasons. they have had another difficult season this year, emphasised by their defeat, their 4-0 emphasised by their defeat, their 4—0 thrashing really by liverpool earlier in the week which gave an indication as tojust earlier in the week which gave an indication as to just how far cut united have fallen. they are struggling to qualify for next season's champions league, so there is a sense it is notjust tinkering with what is already at place at manchester united, it will be an entire overhaul of the club, so some challenge for him when he takes over during summer. how will the players be viewing that, and the fans as well? . , ., , well? the fans i imagine will 'ust be delighted fl well? the fans i imagine will 'ust be delighted that i well? the fans i imagine will 'ust be delighted that finally �* well? the fans i imagine will 'ust be delighted that finally theyh well? the fans i imagine willjustl be delighted that finally they have someone coming in, they have had the caretaker manager since 0le gunnar solskjaer was sacked during the early part of the season and manchester united have had a pretty dismal a few weeks, i say that thrashing by liverpool 4—0 is really a sign of how far they have fallen, there are questions over the future of a lot of their players, for example pull the pogba, their midfielder, he is out of contract during the summer. questions about cristiano bernardo who is now 37, does he still have a future at the club beyond this year? —— rinaldo. it will be a huge challenge for erik ten hag, five years now since much of the united last won a trophy. they have really struggled to live in the aftermath almost of sir alex ferguson when he left back in 2013, so it will be a huge task for erik ten hag when he takes over during the summer. ten hag when he takes over during the summer-— ten hag when he takes over during the summer. the headlines on bbc news: borisjohnson is in india on a trade visit. here, the government will try to delay a house of commons vote on whether to investigate him for misleading mps about lockdown parties. vladimir putin claims victory in his assault on the ukrainian city of mariupol and orders troops to surround a steelworks where the last defenders are holding out. the bbc has discovered evidence that a major conservative party donor was a director of a company secretly owned by a russian oligarch close to vladimir putin. as we've been reporting this morning, borisjohnson is in india on a two—day visit, hoping to secure a trade dealfor the uk. he's meeting with technology industry leaders there. our business correspondent nikhil inamdar is in the city of ahmedabad. tell us more about what he is hoping to achieve this visit. that tell us more about what he is hoping to achieve this visit.— to achieve this visit. that is ri . ht, to achieve this visit. that is right. there _ to achieve this visit. that is right, there have _ to achieve this visit. that is right, there have been - to achieve this visit. that is right, there have been the| to achieve this visit. that is i right, there have been the big to achieve this visit. that is - right, there have been the big bank business announcements that have beenin business announcements that have been in focus on the first day of his visit. 13 commercial deals valued at about $1 billion had been signed and that will create about 11,000 jobs in the uk and big indian companies such as mustek will be committed to invest in the uk. he is in ahmedabad, the home state of narendra modi. has had a hectic day so far, he started off visiting this place right behind me, the home of mahatma gandhi for very long, and also visiting thejcb mahatma gandhi for very long, and also visiting the jcb factory which is really seen as a model example further british industry. there are some cultural engagement is expected as well later in the day, but whole lot of the diplomatic agenda will be accomplished tomorrow where he would be meeting narendra modi in a deli and everything is on the table, including trade and defence as well as a trade. trade is very important because they have been negotiating a free trade agreement that is likely to be completed by the end of this year. to be completed by the end of this ear. ~ . , . to be completed by the end of this ear. . . , . , ., ., year. what is the current situation on trade and _ year. what is the current situation on trade and how— year. what is the current situation on trade and how much _ year. what is the current situation on trade and how much there - year. what is the current situation on trade and how much there is i on trade and how much there is this... you talked about those 11,000 jobs that will be delivered here in these deals, how much of thatis here in these deals, how much of that is already going on and what difference would be free trade agreement make?— difference would be free trade aareement make? , ., , agreement make? these are lengthy negotiations. — agreement make? these are lengthy negotiations, nothing _ agreement make? these are lengthy negotiations, nothing gets _ agreement make? these are lengthy negotiations, nothing gets done - negotiations, nothing gets done overnight, but it is clear there has been progress made on these trade negotiations. what we have seen is that there are about 26 chapters to these trade agreements, four have been completed, 22 there have been significant progress that has been made and there are some sticking points on both sides, so for instance, the uk is very keen to have tariff free access the scotch whisky into the indian market. india on the other hand once more liberalised resume perfect labour forces in access to her students and even professional, highly skilled professionals, so these are some of the negotiations happening, but there is enough resolve on both sides to make sure this is done. it is part of also the uk's deal towards the indo pacific in the post—brexit world and india of course have been doing a fair bit of free trade deals and concluded one with australia as well.— with australia as well. thank you very much _ with australia as well. thank you very much for— with australia as well. thank you very much forjoining _ with australia as well. thank you very much forjoining us. - let's return now to politics closer to home. there are just two weeks to go until voters across the uk go to the polls. voters in england, wales, and scotland will pick who they want to run services that affect everyday life in their local area. those in northern ireland will choose its government. ahead of the vote, we will be profiling some of the key contests in the uk's four nations. today we're in glasgow, and my colleague shaun leyjoins us from the govan area of the city. are part of the city of glasgow which is being significantly redeveloped and in a process of change first 40 odd years now, those at signs down by the old heritage boatyard and the heritage museum, a reminder that it is all very well to talk about devolution of power from westminster to hollywood chilly holyrood, but what about the local councils from holyrood? because just councils from holyrood? becausejust as westminster controls most of councils from holyrood? because just as westminster controls most of the strings fair english government, so holyrood in edinburgh controls the purse strings for scottish local government. the story of scotland though is of very, very large country with a very different identity. we talk about the north south divide an english context, there is a north south divide in wales and a north south divide in scotland. if you talk to people in carmarthen, they will often say things about people in the senate macro in cardiff, and in scotland, where after all some of the island communities are close to a country like norway than they are in england, they will also have pretty strong criticism of people in the central belt here in glasgow and in particular in edinburgh from where the scottish government operates. let's talk now... dr eilidh macphail, sustainable development programme lead at the university of the highlands and islands. thanks forjoining us this morning. just how much devolution has there been powers from a scottish parliament and the scottish government to the local authorities of scotland? i government to the local authorities of scotland?— of scotland? i think one of the first things _ of scotland? i think one of the first things it _ of scotland? i think one of the first things it is _ of scotland? i think one of the first things it is worth - of scotland? i think one of the first things it is worth saying i of scotland? i think one of the j first things it is worth saying is devolution is about where power is most _ devolution is about where power is most legitimately settled. where people _ most legitimately settled. where people accept that that power should be situated. around 60% of people actually _ be situated. around 60% of people actually feel the scottish parliament, they do have trust in the scottish parliament to deliver on the _ the scottish parliament to deliver on the best interests of the scottish— on the best interests of the scottish people. interestingly though, of the 20% of people who think_ though, of the 20% of people who think the — though, of the 20% of people who think the scottish parliament so should — think the scottish parliament so should be abolished, actually one third of— should be abolished, actually one third of them think that more power should _ third of them think that more power should be _ third of them think that more power should be devolved to the local level. _ should be devolved to the local level. so — should be devolved to the local level, so if the scottish government is looking _ level, so if the scottish government is looking to try to convince those who are _ is looking to try to convince those who are maybe not completely convinced about the merits of devolution to scotland, perhaps looking — devolution to scotland, perhaps looking to devolve further to more local level — looking to devolve further to more local level might be something they could pursue a little bit further. and if— could pursue a little bit further. and if we — could pursue a little bit further. and if we take the islands... yes, one of the — and if we take the islands... yes, one of the criticisms _ and if we take the islands... yes, one of the criticisms that - and if we take the islands... 1a: one of the criticisms that used to be made of the way westminster operated was that it would give powers to local councils, it would give money to local councils, but usually their hands were tied about how they would spend the money. they could get pots of money to particular things, could get pots of money to particularthings, but could get pots of money to particular things, but effectively it was a national model. are the scottish parliament repeating that mistake or is it much more willing to say ok, here is a problem, here are the funds, you spend them as you see fit? let are the funds, you spend them as you see fit? ., , are the funds, you spend them as you see fit? . , ., ., see fit? let me answer that in a coule see fit? let me answer that in a couple of _ see fit? let me answer that in a couple of points. _ see fit? let me answer that in a couple of points. the _ see fit? let me answer that in a couple of points. the has - see fit? let me answer that in a i couple of points. the has certainly been _ couple of points. the has certainly been some — couple of points. the has certainly been some criticism of the scottish come _ been some criticism of the scottish come meant for centralising certain things. _ come meant for centralising certain things. for— come meant for centralising certain things, for example police in scotland _ things, for example police in scotland has become a centralised body worries it used to be run by the government in each of the regions — the government in each of the regions. we have also seen, particular— regions. we have also seen, particular example of the islands for example, following the 2014 independence referendum, orkney islands _ independence referendum, orkney islands council and the western isies— islands council and the western isles islands council introduced a policy— isles islands council introduced a policy document calling for more resources — policy document calling for more resources for the islands, more say in government decisions and there has been _ in government decisions and there has been some success on that front. we have _ has been some success on that front. we have recently seen an islands bill being — we have recently seen an islands bill being passed in the scottish parliament which among other things requires _ parliament which among other things requires policymakers to do an islands— requires policymakers to do an islands impact assessment when new policies _ islands impact assessment when new policies are _ islands impact assessment when new policies are made and new strategies to consider— policies are made and new strategies to consider the particular circumstances of the islands. it has not all— circumstances of the islands. it has not all been — circumstances of the islands. it has not all been plain sailing as if you pardon _ not all been plain sailing as if you pardon the — not all been plain sailing as if you pardon the pun, we have had a lot of problems— pardon the pun, we have had a lot of problems with ferries in recent times, — problems with ferries in recent times, partly because of covid but also had _ times, partly because of covid but also bad weather and an ageing fleet. _ also bad weather and an ageing fleet. so— also bad weather and an ageing fleet, so rural community groups are springing _ fleet, so rural community groups are springing up — fleet, so rural community groups are springing up across all of the islands— springing up across all of the islands asking for more of a say of what _ islands asking for more of a say of what is _ islands asking for more of a say of what is happening with the ferries and the _ what is happening with the ferries and the western isles, calling on the scottish government to have a dedicated — the scottish government to have a dedicated place for the islanders to ensure _ dedicated place for the islanders to ensure they have more say in that. i think— ensure they have more say in that. i think it _ ensure they have more say in that. i think it is _ ensure they have more say in that. i think it is a — ensure they have more say in that. i think it is a mixed picture in terms of how— think it is a mixed picture in terms of how much— think it is a mixed picture in terms of how much has been devolved. there has been _ of how much has been devolved. there has been some progress, we have had an act— has been some progress, we have had an act which— has been some progress, we have had an act which has given more powers to local— an act which has given more powers to local communities to devise some of their— to local communities to devise some of their assets. in the western isles, — of their assets. in the western isles, around 70% of the populous and have _ isles, around 70% of the populous and have community owned land which has been _ and have community owned land which has been a _ and have community owned land which has been a popular development. the cal mac has been a popular development. iie: cal mac ferries has been a popular development. "iie: cal mac ferries controversy has been a popular development. i““ie: cal mac ferries controversy which are still ongoing, we had a bigger debate in the scottish parliament only two or three weeks ago, when the first minister had to admit it had not been a project that had been carried out to the highest standards, although there were all sorts of assumptions being made, poor procurement and poor enforcement of contracts, you talk about getting out local reps tend stuff onto the board, is not always going to be a problem here of who plays the pipe will ultimately have to call the tune? at the end of the day it is all tax payers money, but wherever it is coming from, the people with the biggest budget of the people who get the biggest voice? i the people who get the biggest voice? ~' . ., , , voice? i think there certainly is some truth _ voice? i think there certainly is some truth in _ voice? i think there certainly is some truth in that _ voice? i think there certainly is some truth in that and - voice? i think there certainly is some truth in that and as - voice? i think there certainly is some truth in that and as you i some truth in that and as you mentioned earlier, the large majority— mentioned earlier, the large majority of local authority funding does still — majority of local authority funding does still come from the scottish garment— does still come from the scottish garment and although in recent times less has— garment and although in recent times less has been ring fenced to a certain— less has been ring fenced to a certain extent, but there are still restrictions. localauthorities certain extent, but there are still restrictions. local authorities can decide _ restrictions. local authorities can decide on— restrictions. local authorities can decide on their own tax—raising powers. — decide on their own tax—raising powers, they cannot adjust because attacks _ powers, they cannot adjust because attacks by— powers, they cannot adjust because attacks by more than 3% of a result of the _ attacks by more than 3% of a result of the scottish garment decision. —— the cannot— of the scottish garment decision. —— the cannot adjust council tax. in terms _ the cannot adjust council tax. in terms of— the cannot adjust council tax. in terms of the whole structure of local— terms of the whole structure of local democracy, i think if we think of the _ local democracy, i think if we think of the local— local democracy, i think if we think of the local authorities in scotland, we have a very few councillors per head of population with glasgow and the rest of europe and something that could potentially be looked at a wee bit more closely in parliament to try and strengthen that _ in parliament to try and strengthen that. ., ~ in parliament to try and strengthen that. . ,, , ., in parliament to try and strengthen that. ., ~' , ., , in parliament to try and strengthen that. . ,, y., , . in parliament to try and strengthen that. . , . . , in parliament to try and strengthen that. . ,, , . . , ., that. thank you very much. just on that. thank you very much. just on that local decisions _ that. thank you very much. just on that local decisions about - that. thank you very much. just on that local decisions about taxation | that local decisions about taxation decisions, edinburgh is talking about a tourist tax to try and provide a bit more local resource to make up for some of the consequences of having extra tourism and one other thought in this campaign, the liberal democrats are campaigning on a requirement, a legal requirement, that would mean in the future, the shetland islands did not get put in a box on maps of scotland. it was shown where it geographically is, not where it is most convenient to a cartographer sitting in glasgow or in london. joanna, more from us, including a debate with the scottish critical leaders, in the course of the afternoon here on bbc news. —— scottish political leaders. brute the afternoon here on bbc news. -- scottish political leaders.— scottish political leaders. we will be live in the _ scottish political leaders. we will be live in the comments - scottish political leaders. we will be live in the comments shortly i scottish political leaders. we will i be live in the comments shortly for the start of that debate on whether borisjohnson the start of that debate on whether boris johnson misled the start of that debate on whether borisjohnson misled the commons. in the meantime, we will quickly get a weather update. hello again. we still have that easterly breeze coming in from the north sea, not just today, but for the next few days, so here it will feel cooler. the other thing we have got across parts of north—east england and parts of eastern scotland, including the northern isles, is some low cloud, mist and fog, but for many, we are looking at a sunny day. a bit more cloud developing across england and wales where you could see the odd shower, but temperatures today up to 18 degrees. through this evening and overnight we start off with clear skies, then extensive cloud moves in from the north sea and pushes westwards and we see a return to low cloud, mist and fog, with some drizzle across the far north and north—east of scotland. here too there is a chance we could see a touch of frost, but for most of us, we will be frost free. if anything, tomorrow we will have a windier day, gusty winds at that. the cloud in england and wales sinking a bit further south, potentially breaking up along the english channel coast with some showers. a lot of dry weather further north away from the far north, where we hang onto that low cloud. breaking news to bring you about the vote in the commons, because it's a little bit complex in that labour have tabled a motion for parliamentary committee to investigate whether borisjohnson misled the house of commons, and late last night, about apm last night, the government said it was putting forward an amendment to that vote, and the purpose for that was to try to get tory mps on side who were, we don't know the numbers, partly a number were happy to give the go—ahead to an investigation by mps. we are now hearing the amendment has been dropped and also the vote will not be whipped for tory mps, so a big change in what we were expecting this morning. basically now tory mps will be able to vote with their conscience on that labour motion to call for a parliamentary committee to investigate whether borisjohnson misled the commons over parties at downing street on lockdown. this, of course, follows the fine for boris johnson for attending a party and he has repeatedly insisted that he did not mislead the commons. we heard that from him again this morning. he is currently in india on a trade trip, but he said in an interview that he did not deliberately or unwittingly mislead the commons over what was happening in downing street in terms of parties, and it's really interesting, looking in the house there now, the debate about to get under way, and lots of empty seats there on tory benches. let's bring on our correspondent. david, this is a big turnaround, isn't it? a big turn around about 15 minutes before the debate was due to start. let's just remember, yesterday labour, they tabled their motion which said they wanted a parliamentary committee to investigate whether or not the prime minister had misled parliament, something he denies doing. the conservatives then put forward an amendment, essentially kicking this all into the long grassing this vote only happen once that sue gray report, and met police report was finished. that was a three line whip which means conservative mps are all expected to back it. now what the government has done is withdrawn there amendment and it is now a free vote for conservative mps. so a real change in the past 24 hours. ironically we are back to exactly where we were 24 hours ago, and it appears perhaps there was some nervousness about potential rebellions, some mps on conservative benches not happy enough about what they were being expected to do. alternatively, it is entirely possible that the government believes they have the numbers that they can therefore win this vote while keeping it a free vote, and perhaps that would be a better look, but a real sort of change in government strategy with just 15 minutes to go before the debate. shes minutes to go before the debate. as you say... well, no, that was 15 minutes before but now we are expecting the debate to start any minute. do you read anything into the fact there are so many gaps on the fact there are so many gaps on the tory benches?— the fact there are so many gaps on the tory benches? well, one aspect ofthat the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could — the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could be _ the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could be the _ the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could be the fact _ the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could be the fact this - the tory benches? well, one aspect of that could be the fact this is - of that could be the fact this is due to be a very long debate. potentially going up to about five o'clock this afternoon. perhaps some of them thinking they will make an appearance later on. in terms of optics, it would be better you would imagine to have the backbenchers rammed with supportive conservative mps right now, they are to give their backing to the prime minister. of course, the prime minister himself is not actually there, he is on a trip to india at the moment, keen to talk about trade, the war in ukraine, but even thousands of miles away you cannot escape what is happening back here in the house of commons, questions about his own conduct being raised. it is starting, _ conduct being raised. it is starting, sorry _ conduct being raised. it is starting, sorry to - conduct being raised. it is starting, sorry to interrupt it. let's listen to keir starmer. those comments were reasonably interpreted by several media outlets, including the daily telegraph, as being criticism of the archbishop of canterbury and the bbc for their comments on coverage of ukraine. government ministers were out on broadcast round yesterday morning and they did not seek to correct that interpretation. but, mr speaker, since then the government has corrected the record and said the prime minister's comments only referred to the archbishop and not the bbc. so i'm more than happy to echo that correction, and withdraw my comments of yesterday. that draws a line under that. _ sh. right... before we begin, i believe it would _ right... before we begin, i believe it would assist the house if i remind _ it would assist the house if i remind members that the decision in question— remind members that the decision in question and the procedure on this motion, _ question and the procedure on this motion, the — question and the procedure on this motion, the decision before the house _ motion, the decision before the house is— motion, the decision before the house is whether or not to refer the matter— house is whether or not to refer the matter to _ house is whether or not to refer the matter to the committee of privileges at this time. it will be for the — privileges at this time. it will be for the committee to report back on whether— for the committee to report back on whether it _ for the committee to report back on whether it considers there has been a contempt. whilst it is perfectly in order— a contempt. whilst it is perfectly in order for the honourable members to question _ in order for the honourable members to question the veracity of the premise — to question the veracity of the premise of's responses to the house cited in_ premise of's responses to the house cited in the — premise of's responses to the house cited in the motion, it is not in order— cited in the motion, it is not in order to — cited in the motion, it is not in order to challenge more generally the truthfulness of the prime minister— the truthfulness of the prime minister or any other honourable or i’ili'it minister or any other honourable or right honourable member. good temper. — right honourable member. good temper, moderation must be maintained in parliamentary language, much of which we may be said today— language, much of which we may be said today has already been said in response _ said today has already been said in response to the prime minister's statement on tuesday. previous debates — statement on tuesday. previous debates on such motions have relatively— debates on such motions have relatively short since 2010, the longer— relatively short since 2010, the longer such debate has been for one hour and _ longer such debate has been for one hour and 29— longer such debate has been for one hour and 29 minutes. and debates have been— hour and 29 minutes. and debates have been as short as seven minutes. that said. _ have been as short as seven minutes. that said. an— have been as short as seven minutes. that said, an amendment has been selected _ that said, an amendment has been selected and this motion of great importance, the debate may continue for as— importance, the debate may continue for as long _ importance, the debate may continue for as long as it takes, unless either— for as long as it takes, unless either a — for as long as it takes, unless either a successful closure to bring the debate — either a successful closure to bring the debate to an end, or we reach five o'clock. — the debate to an end, or we reach five o'clock, in which case the debate — five o'clock, in which case the debate will be adjourned to a future date _ debate will be adjourned to a future date i_ debate will be adjourned to a future date. i would also say, if it begins to become — date. i would also say, if it begins to become very repetitive, we then may have _ to become very repetitive, we then may have to — to become very repetitive, we then may have to consider whether to do a closure _ may have to consider whether to do a closure early, but i will leave that for how _ closure early, but i will leave that for how the — closure early, but i will leave that for how the debate develops. any members — for how the debate develops. any members who are wishing to speak need _ members who are wishing to speak need to— members who are wishing to speak need to stand to ensure they catch my eye, _ need to stand to ensure they catch my eye, and near the need to stand to ensure they catch my eye, and nearthe beginning need to stand to ensure they catch my eye, and near the beginning of this debate. so, the right honourable member for holborn and st pancras _ honourable member for holborn and st pancras has _ honourable member for holborn and st pancras has tabled a motion for debate — pancras has tabled a motion for debate on — pancras has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which _ debate on the matter of privilege, which i've — debate on the matter of privilege, which i've agreed should take lessons — which i've agreed should take lessons today. inform the house that although _ lessons today. inform the house that although i've selected the amendment in the name of the minister of the cabinet _ in the name of the minister of the cabinet office, i understand it is now the — cabinet office, i understand it is now the intention of the government not to— now the intention of the government not to move — now the intention of the government not to move that amendment. jeering. so now we will start by calling keir starmer _ so now we will start by calling keir starmer to — so now we will start by calling keir starmer to move the motion. thank ou, mr starmer to move the motion. thank you. mr speaker- — starmer to move the motion. thank you, mr speaker. i— starmer to move the motion. thank you, mr speaker. i beg _ starmer to move the motion. thank you, mr speaker. i beg to _ starmer to move the motion. thank you, mr speaker. i beg to move - starmer to move the motion. thank you, mr speaker. i beg to move the motion in my name and the other names on the order sheet for today. mr speaker, the emotion i have tabled six to defend the simple principle that honesty, integrity, and telling the truth matter in our politics. that is not a principle that i or the labour party have a special claim through. it is a british principle. it is a principle that has been cherished by conservatives for as long as their party has existed. embraced by unionist and nationalist parties alike. and one that still guides members from every political party in this house. i will give way. i lost my mother to cover in the first lockdown, it was a very painful experience, because she was in a hospital bed, we obeyed the rules, we could not be by her side when she passed. i have made my disquiet known to the prime minister a couple of times now, and he has taken that on board. i am deeply unhappy at the way number ten has performed over this period in question. but what i would suggest to the right honourable member is that it is perfectly natural in this country that you weigh all the evidence before deciding on intent, because the central issue here is whether the central issue here is whether the prime minister misled parliament. would he agree that it should be referred to the privileges committee, that committee needs to weigh all evidence before coming to a conclusion and that includes the so great a conclusion and that includes the so urea- �* a a conclusion and that includes the sourea- �* ,, so great can i say to others, interventions _ so great can i say to others, interventions are _ so great can i say to others, interventions are meant i so great can i say to others, | interventions are meant to so great can | say to others, - interventions are meant to be so great can | say to others, _ interventions are meant to be short. what i would say, and i do see to other5~~~ _ what i would say, and i do see to others... can what i would say, and i do see t0 others... ., what i would say, and i do see to others... ., , ., what | would say, and | do see to others... ., , ., ., others... can i 'ust for say i am sor for others... can i 'ust for say i am sorry for the — others... can i just for say i am sorry for the loss _ others... can i just for say i am sorry for the loss within - others... can i just for say i am sorry for the loss within your - sorry for the loss within your family, and we all send our condolences. i know how difficult it has been for so many during this difficult period. in relation to the substance of intervention, just two points, and i will develop them later. the first is there is already a case before the house that is very clear, the prime minister said no rules were broken, 50 fines for breaking the rules and the law —— in the law have already been issued. i understand the sentiment behind the intervention, if the motion is passed, the committee will not begin their substance of work until the police investigations are complete. so that they will have all of that evidence before, one way or the other, in order to come to a view. and i think that this within the body of the motion and that is the right way and they way it should work and i hope that does address the concerns that have been raised. i will give way. the concerns that have been raised. i will give way-— i will give way. further to that oint of i will give way. further to that point of the — i will give way. further to that point of the honourable - i will give way. further to that - point of the honourable gentleman, many of us in the chamber have lost loved ones over the last period of time and we feel greatly aggrieved we have not had the opportunity to have our day in court, if that is their way to put it, perhaps. we do feel they need to have justice seen for all those who have lost loved ones, those who passed away and who we mess greatly. does the right honourable gentleman feel, when it comes to justice, why we do need to see all of the evidence? and that there has to be accountability in this process, and accountability means people have to answer for what their actions have been.— their actions have been. again, can i exress their actions have been. again, can i express my _ their actions have been. again, can i express my sadness _ their actions have been. again, can i express my sadness at _ their actions have been. again, can i express my sadness at the - their actions have been. again, can i express my sadness at the loss i their actions have been. again, can| i express my sadness at the loss he and his family have endured, and i was struck particularly just and his family have endured, and i was struck particularlyjust a and his family have endured, and i was struck particularly just a few months ago at the way he spoke about that in this house. i think we all wear. on the substance of point, this is really the point of the emotion, this is about honesty, integrity and telling the truth in this place. it's an important principle and one we all share. as i say, not claiming this as a labour party principle, it is a principle we all share, because we know the importance of it. that is why it's a matter for the house to consider. but it is a principle under attack. the prime minister has been accused of repeatedly, deliberately and routinely misleading this house over parties out in downing street during lockdown. that is a serious allegation, because if it is true, it amounts to contempt of parliament. and it is not and should never be an accusation that is made lightly. and nor should we diminish the rights of members to defend each other from that accusation. but the prime minister's supporters don't seek to do that, instead many of them seek to simply dismiss its importance. they say there are worse crimes, he did not rob a bank, he only broke the rules for ten minutes, it was all a long time ago... every time... i will give way at any moment. every time one of these arguments is trotted out, the status of this is gradually eroded under democracy becomes a little weaker, because the convention that parliament must not be misled, and that in return we don't accuse each other of lying are not spurious quirks of this strange place, they are fundamental pillars on which our constitution is built, and they are observed wherever parliamentary democracy thrives. with them, a public debate is elevated. when members assume good faith on behalf of our opponents, we can explore, test, interrogate reasonable disagreements about how we achieve our common goals. because ultimately no matter which benches we set on, no matter which benches we set on, no matter which whip we follow, fundamentally we are all here for one reason, to advance those common goals of the nations of the people that make up our united kingdom. i will give way. i’m that make up our united kingdom. i will give way-— will give way. i'm very grateful to the leader _ will give way. i'm very grateful to the leader of _ will give way. i'm very grateful to the leader of the _ will give way. i'm very grateful to the leader of the opposition - the leader of the opposition forgiving way. you mention some of the arguments, it was just nine minutes, i meta the arguments, it was just nine minutes, i met a woman who was the daughter of a serviceman who lost his life. the week before that birthday party. she said to me, what i wouldn't give forjust nine more minutes with him. i congratulate him on the way he is rising above party politics here, but tojust on the way he is rising above party politics here, but to just diminish nine minutes asjust politics here, but to just diminish nine minutes as just anything, it diminishes us all across both sides of this house, would he not agree? i'm gratefulfor of this house, would he not agree? i'm grateful for that intervention, because it goes to the heart of the matter, because some have tried to suggest that a short period, there is some equivalence between these penalty notices and speeding. and thatjust penalty notices and speeding. and that just doesn't understand penalty notices and speeding. and thatjust doesn't understand the enormity of the difference. it is very rare that the whole of the nation goes through something together, a trauma together that was covid. and the awful cases of funerals, weddings that were missed, parents who did not see the birth of their children, and there are awful cases. but i think almost every family was marked during this period, including my own, buy things that we didn't do, that we would have liked to have done, usually visiting elderly parents, seeing children. and there was a huge sense of guilt that we didn't do it, including in my own family. guilt that because we followed the rules, we didn't do what we thought was actually right for elderly relatives and that is why it hurt so much. that is what anybody trying to say this is just like a speeding ticket doesn't understand what this goes through, politically and emotionally. just going back to the principles, because i want this debate to be about principles... i think this is where the debate should be. the committee will be charged of this motion goes through in determining actually whether there was any misleading, but this is about the principles that we all care about, and that is why i think everybody should vote for this motion this evening to uphold those principles because those principles that we don't mislead the house, and in return we don't call each other liars in this house, they ensure that we make good decisions and avoid bad ones. it is what makes our democracy grow in ways that reflect the hopes and tackle the fears of those that we represent. it is what makes our democracy thrives. it is what makes this house thrive. it is what makes this house thrive. it is what makes this house thrive. it is what makes britain thrive. mr speaker, we don't have to look far to see what happens when that faith is lost. and there is no hope of recent resolving disagreements. when nations are divided, when they live in different worlds where their own truths and their own alternative facts, democracy is replaced by an obsession with defeating the other side, those we disagree with become enemies, the hope of learning and adapting is lost. politics becomes a blood sport, rather than a quest to improve lives. a winner takes all politics where inevitably everyone loses out. i will give way. the leader of _ loses out. i will give way. the leader of the _ loses out. i will give way. the leader of the opposition was bighearted enough to say earlier that he unwittingly misled the house. i'd sure he would agree with me it is very important we stick with the convention that we don't call each other liars. there is a good reason for that. two of our colleagues have been killed, there has been a lot of attacks on colleagues, so in this debate, can wejust accept colleagues, so in this debate, can we just accept that everybody here is an honourable member, and when they speak care, they may unwittingly mislead the house, but they think that they were, for instance, abiding by the real spice so can we tone down the whole nature of this debate?— of this debate? thank you for that intervention _ of this debate? thank you for that intervention and _ of this debate? thank you for that intervention and i _ of this debate? thank you for that intervention and i will— of this debate? thank you for that intervention and i will try - of this debate? thank you for that intervention and i will try to - of this debate? thank you for that intervention and i will try to keep | intervention and i will try to keep within those parameters and elevate this to the principle that we are actually discussing today, which is the principle is that we apply when we are debating in the chamber. i will give way. i’m we are debating in the chamber. i will give way-— will give way. i'm very grateful to my honourable _ will give way. i'm very grateful to my honourable friend _ will give way. i'm very grateful to my honourable friend for- will give way. i'm very grateful to my honourable friend for giving i will give way. i'm very grateful to i my honourable friend for giving way. and also for what he said about the fact we don't want the site to having a monopoly on truth. it is a very important point he has made there. does he agree with me there's something really fundamental about this, that we as members of parliament are fit to hold the spirits that we have in terms of holding people to accountwhether the politics will always get in the way? it was very disturbing to hear that because there was a labour chair, conservative members might vote against it, and i was disappointed that the honourable memberfelt against it, and i was disappointed that the honourable member felt he had to step down, but either we have an independent or we do it yourself, is very important here. i’m an independent or we do it yourself, is very important here.— is very important here. i'm grateful for that intervention _ is very important here. i'm grateful for that intervention and _ is very important here. i'm grateful for that intervention and it's - is very important here. i'm grateful for that intervention and it's very i for that intervention and it's very important, we do have these procedures to hold us all to the rules of this house, and it's very important that they are applied in the right way, with the right principles. i will give way cut i am crateful principles. i will give way cut i am grateful to _ principles. i will give way cut i am grateful to him _ principles. i will give way cut i am grateful to him for— principles. i will give way cut i am grateful to him for giving way, he is making incredible powerful speech. on procedures, i wonder if he would agree there is a bigger point about as many as are of the opinion, say "aye". to the contrary, "no" governance structures that are whole system of checks and balances is completely out of the. if is beyond ludicrous that the arbiter of whether or not the ministerial code has been broken as the person accused of breaking it? does he agree with me we also need a wider look at those governance structures which at the moment are simply not fit for purpose? i which at the moment are simply not fit for purpose?— fit for purpose? i am grateful for the intervention _ fit for purpose? i am grateful for the intervention because - fit for purpose? i am grateful for the intervention because i - fit for purpose? i am grateful for the intervention because i thinkl the intervention because i think it's a very serious point and a lot of our and traditions are based on the principle of honour, and that members of this house wouldn't other than inadvertently mislead the house, and that is why the rules are set, but they are set on that proposition, and if there is a member of this house, whoever that is, that doesn't abide by those principles, those honourable principles, those honourable principles, then that test, stress test the roles we have. i understand comletel test the roles we have. i understand completely the _ test the roles we have. i understand completely the position _ test the roles we have. i understand completely the position about - test the roles we have. i understand| completely the position about toning down the rhetoric, i completely understand that... but let me journalists... let mejust understand that... but let me journalists... let me just make this point, because i have known the honourable gentleman over the years. we can't tone down the seriousness of this matter. i was in the prime minister's is that week, the neighbouring to mine, and there is some shift in the vote from tory to labour because of the position but thatis labour because of the position but that is not the significant issue, the significant who had had enough of the system, were blaming the system itself. that is what we are fighting for, what we are campaigning foryou. is what we are fighting for, what we are campaigning for you. we are comparing to restore the credibility and the democratic processes of our country. i and the democratic processes of our count . ~ �* , ., and the democratic processes of our count . ~ 3 ., ., , country. i think it's a really important _ country. i think it's a really important and _ country. i think it's a really important and powerful i country. i think it's a really i important and powerful point, i'm gratefulfor important and powerful point, i'm grateful for the intervention. important and powerful point, i'm gratefulfor the intervention. if we don't pass this motion or take the opportunity to restate the principles, then we are all complicit in allowing these standards to slip. we are all complicit in allowing the public to think we are all the same, nobody tells the truth, and there are alternative sets of facts. the conventions and the traditions we are debating this morning are not an accident. they have been handed down to us as the tools that protect britain from malaise, extremism and decline. and this is important, because the case against the prime minister is that she has abused those tools. that is the case against him, that he has used them to protect himself rather than our democracy. that he has turned them against all that they are supposed to support, and members opposite know that the prime minister has stood before this house and said things that are not true. save in the knowledge that he will not be accused of lying, because he can't be. he has stood at the dispatch box and point—blank denied robe —— rule breaking took place when it did. as he did so, he was hoping to gain extra protection from our good faith that no prime minister would ever deliberately mislead this house. he has used our faith, deliberately mislead this house. he has used ourfaith, our conventions to cover up his misdeeds. i will just finish this point. because after months of denials, of absurd claims that all the rules were followed, feigned outrage at his staff discussing rule breaking, we now know the law was broken. we know the prime minister himself broke the law, and we know he faces the possibility of being found to have broken it again, and again, and again. because the police investigation is ongoing, we don't need to make finaljudgment on the primary super—smart contempt of parliament today. when the time comes, the prime minister will be able to make his case that his repeated misleading parliament was inadvertent, as his defence, that he did not understand the rules that he himself wrote us could make defence, that his advice at the heart of downing street either didn't understand the role is either or misled him. when they assured him that they were followed at all times. or that he thought he was at a work event, even while the empty bottles piled up. he can make those defences, he can make those defences when the time comes. we already know he has a case to answer. the prime minister said no rules were broken. but over 50 fines for breaching the rules and they will have now been issued, including to the prime minister. anybody who denies that simple fact has their head in the sand, or has given up any interest in the truth, giving up interest in the traditions of our nation, in order to prop up a lawbreaking prime minister. now, the emotion today would refer the matter to the committee for privileges, a committee for privileges, a committee that has a government majority, so no one can say the prime minister is not being judged by his peers, the committee would only investigate the prime minister for contempt once the police have concluded their investigation. so no one can say there is prejudice to the rest of the inquiry. and, of course, any findings the committee comes to, any sanctions they might propose, would then come back before this house as a whole, so no one can say it is too soon for the house to the side. it is a system of self—governance, and it should be, because with the great privilege that comes with sitting in this place comes the great responsibility to protect the conventions that underpin our democracy. i will give way. underpin our democracy. i will give wa . �* ., ., underpin our democracy. i will give wa. �* ., ., ., ., way. i'm grateful to the honourable memberfor— way. i'm grateful to the honourable member for giving _ way. i'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. _ way. i'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. on - member for giving way. on conventions, memberfor giving way. on conventions, does he also agree language is equally important, and therefore would you take this opportunity due to distance himself from the honourable member who spoke earlier on who said he wanted to lynch and honourable member? or the honourable member who sat right next... that called members on the site tory some, he should distance himself from them?— site tory some, he should distance himself from them? that's a shame, i actually thought _ himself from them? that's a shame, i actually thought we _ himself from them? that's a shame, i actually thought we were _ himself from them? that's a shame, i actually thought we were having - himself from them? that's a shame, i actually thought we were having a i actually thought we were having a reasonably serious debate. mr speaker, mr speaker... order. order. iwill 'ust speaker, mr speaker... order. order. iwilljust say— speaker, mr speaker... order. order. i willjust say to _ speaker, mr speaker... order. order. i willjust say to the _ speaker, mr speaker... order. order. i willjust say to the honourable - i willjust say to the honourable lady, _ i willjust say to the honourable lady, she — i willjust say to the honourable lady, she needs to sit down, in fairness — lady, she needs to sit down, in fairness to— lady, she needs to sit down, in fairness to the member in charge is given— fairness to the member in charge is givena— fairness to the member in charge is given a lot — fairness to the member in charge is given a lot of interventions, but i certainly— given a lot of interventions, but i certainly don't need you standing up and waiting to catch someone's i. keir starmer. mr and waiting to catch someone's i. keir starmer.— keir starmer. mr speaker, if this 'ust keir starmer. mr speaker, if this just descends — keir starmer. mr speaker, if this just descends into _ keir starmer. mr speaker, if this just descends into a _ keir starmer. mr speaker, if this just descends into a shouting i keir starmer. mr speaker, if this i just descends into a shouting match, we lose the principle which is there to defend all of us, all of us, including the members opposite. we are not claiming a principle to support these benches are not those benches, we it is a interval that supports all of us. if we fail... i will take that intervention. i supports all of us. if we fail. .. i will take that intervention. i am most grateful. _ will take that intervention. i am most grateful. the _ will take that intervention. i am most grateful. the leader - will take that intervention. i am most grateful. the leader of i will take that intervention. i am most grateful. the leader of the opposition is quite rightlyjust said it affects everyone in this house. would he accept that at this very moment in time, there is a complication, which is that the committee on standards report, which is currently being conducted under the aegis of recommendations does raise questions about whether or not it is possible at this juncture to have a fair trial of natural justice? that is currently under discussion within the house, and the same rule applies in regard to the question of the committee on privileges, which has itself already been criticised. i was on the joint committee myself and i can assure the leader of the opposition there are serious problems which arise in relations to the need to rectify those omissions in the procedural fairness. i'm gratefulfor i'm grateful for that intervention and i have heard the case he puts on naturaljustice now a of times and because he has every right to make that case. i disagree, but that is the point of the debates we have. but but that debate about natural justice or due process does not need to hold up this process. this motion cannot pass it today, it should pass today, and frankly everyone should support it passing to the principles. —— can pass today. there is a discussion about natural justice, we will take different views on this, but that does not need to hold up this process. will give way and then make some progress. give way and then make some ro~ress. �* . ~' give way and then make some ro~ress. �* ., ~ ., progress. i'm thankful to the honourable _ progress. i'm thankful to the honourable gentleman i progress. i'm thankful to the honourable gentleman for i progress. i'm thankful to the i honourable gentleman for giving progress. i'm thankful to the - honourable gentleman for giving way and he is quite clear to prosecute the case on the basis of principle, but there are still on the order paper, even if the government is not going to move it now as an amendment, which would indicate that not everybody in this house shares his view about the importance of these principles. so does he share my view that at the conclusion of this debate, there should be a division so that we know where every single member of this house stands in relation to this principle, because at a time like this on an issue like this, there should be no hiding place for anyone? issue like this, there should be no hiding place foranyone? i issue like this, there should be no hiding place for anyone? i am crateful hiding place for anyone? i am grateful for — hiding place for anyone? i am grateful for that _ hiding place for anyone? i —n grateful for that intervention and i agree, because we have a duty here today in relation to this motion and relation to these pencils and if we fail in our duty, the public will not forgive and forget we have done so. —— these principles. because this will be the parliament that has failed, failed to stand up for honesty, integrity and telling the truth in politics, failed to stand up truth in politics, failed to stand up to a prime minister who seeks to turn outward faith against us and failed to stand up for our great democracy. and it is notjust the eyes of our country that are upon us, it will also be the judgment of the future generations who will look back at what members of this great house did when our customs were tested, when its traditions were pushed to breaking point, when we were called up to stand up for honesty, integrity and the truth. i move the motion, mr speaker. the auestion move the motion, mr speaker. the question is — move the motion, mr speaker. the question is is _ move the motion, mr speaker. the question is is on the order paper. i now call— question is is on the order paper. i now call the — question is is on the order paper. i now call the father of the house. mr now call the father of the house. speaker, part now call the father of the house. ij�*i speaker, part of now call the father of the house. ii speaker, part of this is about the prime minister. my habit over 46 years has not been to make a public or private comment about a party leader, mine or somebody else's and they do not propose it to change it now, but if i was to say to the prime minister i say it directly. my preference would be to go with the amendment. it is not going to be moved, so i can't. this is not the right time that he has to make a decision and the words of the amendment are wanting about support. i may be in a minority and sporting that, but that is not a problem and this house, it is what a lot of people do. second thing, i think the words in the third paragraph of the prime minister's statement on tuesday bill out the situation that he did not think in fact it was a party or the rules are being broken, he now accepts it has beenjudged by the police to be different and has accepted that. i do not believe we should build a great big cake on top of that admission, acceptance... i will not, thank you. it would also be better if he hasn't decided that the reference to provincial committee should be made when all the information is available from the information is available from the office report and the results of the office report and the results of the police investigation. —— has decided. without attacking the honourable member of her guildford, those who had the cut today programme this morning had the repeated reference to the local government elections on the 5th of may. i believe that whatever the leader of the opposition says, some parts of what is before the house todayis parts of what is before the house today is straightforward attempt to get an advantage. i intended to have no part in that. i get an advantage. i intended to have no part in that-— no part in that. i now come to the leader of the _ no part in that. i now come to the leader of the snp. _ no part in that. i now come to the leader of the snp. thank - no part in that. i now come to the leader of the snp. thank you, i no part in that. i now come to the leader of the snp. thank you, mrj leader of the snp. thank you, mr seaker. leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker- i — leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think _ leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think on _ leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think on a _ leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think on a day - leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think on a day like i leader of the snp. thank you, mr speaker. i think on a day like thisj speaker. i think on a day like this we think of all those that made it 70 sacrifices over the covid pandemic, those that lost so many loved ones and our thoughts and prayers today are with each and every one of them. —— so many sacrifices. mr speaker, there is one reason why it is so important that this motion is debated and passed today, because at the very heart of the scandal, there is one thing that needs to be said, one thing that needs to be said, one thing that needs to be heard, and it is the very reason that we all need to add. and the reason is this, that the prime minister of the united kingdom is a lawyer. i genuinely do not say that lightly and i do not sit loosely. —— is a liar. i honestly believe we should be slow to use that word. but i believe it is right we should never be slow to say it and call it out when it is so obviously true. because members across this house know it to be true and the public have long known that to be true. and that is why it needs to be true. and that is why it needs to be true. and that is why it needs to be said today and why we will need to act. because, mr speaker, everything all day in this chamber there are motions that come before this house which are complex and new minced and there are usually tier sides to an argument and valid reasons from whatever proposition is proposed, but we can safely say that this definitively is not one of those debates. the evidence of the motion speaks for itself. it is as clear as day, if there ever was an open and shut case this is it. mr speaker, last december the prime minister came to this house and denied that there were any parties in 10 downing street during the long covid lockdown is. he hid behind his staff in saying it. he told us he was given a firm reassurance that no parties had happened, that no rules had been broken. every member of this parliament when estate. the public saw it. with their own eyes. and shamefully. to this very day it is still on the record of this house, but we know the true. the truth contains no ifs, no buts and no maybes. mr speaker, the house was misled and so when the public. and we were all misled deliberately, because the prime minister knew the truth. not only where parties happening, not only was the law broken, the prime minister was at the very parties he denied had even happened. the truth is that simple and it is this, he lied to avoid getting caught. and once he got caught, he lied again. there is no other way to describe it. there is no other word for it. now, mr speaker, i can understand that this may be a terrible truth for the government benches to hear, but it is a truth that they need to hear and it is a truth they need to live with. and i say to the father of the house, who i have the utmost respect for, this has got nothing to do with any elections. this is about the behaviour of a prime minister in office. and much more importantly, the uncomfortable truth that the prime minister of the united kingdom is a liar, is exactly where they finally need to act and remove him from office. and other prime ministers, including all the predecessors as it conservative prime ministers, it would have been long gone by now. mr speaker, the benches opposite but the prime minister empower. they put the micro have the power to remove him and the public expect them to act. we have reached this point, a of content and a sitting prime minister is shocking but unfortunately no surprise. i will happily give way. i’m but unfortunately no surprise. i will happily give way. i'm grateful to my right _ will happily give way. i'm grateful to my right honourable _ will happily give way. i'm grateful to my right honourable friend i will happily give way. i'm grateful to my right honourable friend for| to my right honourable friend for giving way. he has made an important point about members on the benches opposite being here to listen and see this and regardless of the number of flushed or drained faces opposite, what does he say to those who have previously called for the prime minister to resign, but now, as things have got worse, have changed their position and are not here today? i’m changed their position and are not here today?— here today? i'm grateful for that intervention _ here today? i'm grateful for that intervention and _ here today? i'm grateful for that intervention and i _ here today? i'm grateful for that intervention and i will— here today? i'm grateful for that intervention and i will come i here today? i'm grateful for that| intervention and i will come onto that in a little bit more detail, but i say to everybody, the tory mps that are hear and those who are not for whatever reason, to show some moralfibre, backbone, to recognise what this prime minister is doing to be very fabric of our democracy. and today, today of all days, to do the right thing and support this motion thatis right thing and support this motion that is in the name of the leader of the opposition, but so many other parties in this house as well. mr speaker, we should not forget that when the tories put this prime minister into downing street nearly three years ago, the tories new... actually it was the conservatives who elected borisjohnson as their leader and the important fact, mr speaker, is that the tories new exactly the kind of person that they were putting into the highest office in the land. they knew his track record, they knew his character, they knew who he was, they knew what he was, and they still chose him as their leader. of everyone in this house, the members opposite no better than anyone else that the scandal and lawbreaking was always going to define his time in office. and in these three short years, unfortunately those who made this prediction is have not been disappointed. the sleeves and the scandal have been ten a penny. from lying to the queen, to illegally proroguing parliament... order, i have asked _ proroguing parliament... order, i have asked for _ proroguing parliament... order, i have asked for more _ proroguing parliament... order, i have asked for more temperate i have asked for more temperate language — have asked for more temperate language and i am not happy. i want you to _ language and i am not happy. i want you to withdraw that point. i igrill you to withdraw that point. i will do so, but _ you to withdraw that point. i will do so, but let — you to withdraw that point. i will do so, but let because _ you to withdraw that point. i will do so, but let because i - you to withdraw that point. iii" ii. do so, but let because i cannot forget the fact that the prime minister was found in the highest court of the land of illegally proroguing this parliament. stuffing the house of lords... figs proroguing this parliament. stuffing the house of lords... $5 i proroguing this parliament. stuffing the house of lords. . .— the house of lords... as i said at the house of lords... as i said at the beginning. — the house of lords. .. as i said at the beginning. i— the house of lords. .. as i said at the beginning, i know— the house of lords... as i said at the beginning, i know the - the house of lords... as i said at - the beginning, i know the honourable member_ the beginning, i know the honourable member will want to stick to what i said, _ member will want to stick to what i said. it _ member will want to stick to what i said. it is _ member will want to stick to what i said, it is about the terms of what we are _ said, it is about the terms of what we are debating, we cannot go beyond that, so_ we are debating, we cannot go beyond that, so i_ we are debating, we cannot go beyond that, so i know he can stick to the script— that, so i know he can stick to the script that — that, so i know he can stick to the script that i — that, so i know he can stick to the script that i have explained that we do so, _ script that i have explained that we do so, ian— script that i have explained that we do so, ian blackford. | script that i have explained that we do so, ian blackford. i will script that i have explained that we do so, ian blackford.— do so, ian blackford. i will happily take that guidance, _ do so, ian blackford. i will happily take that guidance, mr— do so, ian blackford. i will happily take that guidance, mr speaker, | do so, ian blackford. i will happily. take that guidance, mr speaker, but of course we will reflect on the supreme courtjudgment. stuffing the house of lords with tory party donors, vip lanes for covid contracts and even dodgy donations to decorate downing street. this is who the prime minister is. it is who he has always been. is a prime minister, he has done exactly what it says on the ten, but the real point is this, with every day that passes, every day he stays in power, it is who the entire conservative party has now become. i it is who the entire conservative party has now become.- it is who the entire conservative party has now become. i thank my honourable — party has now become. i thank my honourable friend _ party has now become. i thank my honourable friend forgiving - party has now become. i thank my honourable friend forgiving way, i party has now become. i thank my| honourable friend forgiving way, he is making a very measured and powerful speech... people in my constituency have been writing to me calling for the prime minister's resignation, what they are not surprised at is the repeated behaviour of the prime minister, the lame excuses and the pattern repeating over and over again. what is surprising is the honourable members opposite are keeping him in office, why does my honourable friend think that is the case? harare friend think that is the case? have to sa , i friend think that is the case? have to say. i hepe _ friend think that is the case? have to say, i hope members— friend think that is the case? have to say, i hope members opposite the senate very carefully to what might honourable friend just said, because the power to remove the prime minister rests with them. they can submit letters to the 1922 committee, they can recognise the damage that this... studio: we are watching the commons, that debate on it leading to an inquiry over whether borisjohnson misled parliament over lockdown. coverage continues on bbc news. they do not wish to hear the voices... who quite appalled at his behaviour over covid. to have members vote down this motion, not only are they endorsing all those candles and all that sleaze, they are handing the prime minister a blank cheque to do it all over again and i would be surprised if the honourable gentleman opposite me would accept the scandals, the sleaze, corruption and is prepared to give the prime minister a blank cheque, because i do not want to. if you want to do that, he can write and explain. mr that, he can write and explain. ii speaker, because he that, he can write and explain. i speaker, because he is right to be surprised, because i am appalled and thatis surprised, because i am appalled and that is why i was encouraging him to sit down because if they would just let as a speaking might advance his own cause. some of us are externally disappointed, but what a happy floor, he had worked i said on tuesday, his brother in christ, does he not believe in redemption? —— he heard what i said on tuesday. i believe that when a prime minister has it misled the house, he should face the appropriate sanctions. mr speaker, i know you understand... well my honourable friend giveaway? the gentleman opposite talks about position, dissing a degree when the conservative party in a prayer attacks the very foundation of the church of england, we should be taking no lectures from them on being contrite?— taking no lectures from them on bein: contrite? ., ., ., being contrite? have to say, we have had the usual— being contrite? have to say, we have had the usual deflection _ being contrite? have to say, we have had the usual deflection from - being contrite? have to say, we have had the usual deflection from the - had the usual deflection from the prime minister over the last few days and to see the archbishop of canterbury be introduced at the way that he was by the prime minister, to be introduced in such a way, my goodness. utterly shameful. ithank the honourable _ goodness. utterly shameful. ithank the honourable gentleman - goodness. utterly shameful. ithank the honourable gentleman forgiving | the honourable gentleman forgiving way and in the issue of christian forgiveness, i wonder if it is worth pointing out that before christian forgiveness you must first have a confession and contrition which we have not seen from the prime minister. {lii have not seen from the prime minister. .., , ., minister. of course, how we get confession _ minister. of course, how we get confession from _ minister. of course, how we get confession from a _ minister. of course, how we get confession from a prime - minister. of course, how we get | confession from a prime minister that denies everything ijust do not know. mr speaker, i know you understand that i cannot let this motion pass without a special word for the spineless scottish tories, because in fairness, the scottish tory leader is probably the only person in the conservative party who finds himself in a deeper hole than the prime minister. in fact, he has so far down that fiscal hole that he found it impossible to dig his way out and make his weight down to london to vote his boss out tonight. i understand plenty of people back home are looking forward to the scottish tories being given a straight red in the council elections in a few weeks and for most people, ...— elections in a few weeks and for most people, that is democracy! let me go — most people, that is democracy! let me go again _ most people, that is democracy! let me go again and _ most people, that is democracy! let me go again and i _ most people, that is democracy! let me go again and i hope - most people, that is democracy! let me go again and i hope the - let me go again and i hope the people in scott and i watching this, because what we see are the conservatives trying to shout down the parliamentarians in this house, thatis the parliamentarians in this house, that is what is happening. mr speaker, for most people it is very understandable... scotland's answer from the tories, let's shout scotland down because that is what they are doing this afternoon. order, order. can wejust calm it down? _ order, order. can wejust calm it down? i— order, order. can wejust calm it down? i do — order, order. can wejust calm it down? i do want to hear the honourable gentleman and i know he wants _ honourable gentleman and i know he wants to _ honourable gentleman and i know he wants to get back on track and does not want _ wants to get back on track and does not want to— wants to get back on track and does not want to distract from the debate _ not want to distract from the debate. . ~ not want to distract from the debate. ., ,, , ., not want to distract from the debate. . ,, ,, ~ not want to distract from the debate. ., «i i ., «i ., debate. thank you, mr speaker. for most people. _ debate. thank you, mr speaker. for most people. it _ debate. thank you, mr speaker. for most people, it is _ debate. thank you, mr speaker. for most people, it is very _ most people, it is very understandable that the very reaction to the flip flopping tory leader in scotland is itjustified angen leader in scotland is itjustified anger, but when i reflect on the position of the scottish tory leader, my main reaction is something that i know he will appreciate far, far less. i actually feel sorry for him, because he is by no means the first person to have his career ruined by the prime minister. that particular pile of people has mounted high by this stage, because everybody, and i mean everybody, eventually thrown under the boris bus. as we saw yesterday, not even the archbishop of canterbury is a safe. clearly the days of the church of england being the conservative party opera are long gone. the prime minister's party are clearly praying to another god these days which were not guarantee their salvation. an attack on the archbishop gives another toxic insight into the thinking and methodology of the prime minister, because his modus operandi is very simple and it is this, when he finds himself under political pressure, finds that someone else to blame, anyone else, just as long as he never takes responsibility himself. because nothing and nobody else matters. the only thing that does matters. the only thing that does matter is that this a prime minister will stop at nothing to save his own skin. that is white members opposite should not save him today. think about it. —— why members opposite. he would not lift his finger to help them, so if they have self—respect, they should ask themselves why they should contemplate locking through the lobbies for him. let me and at this point, it might surprise members that has a party that is so unapologetically seeking out of this institution and out of this parliament actually do care of how it acts, operates and the values it holds. and i care deeply for this reason, because it today's motion is notjust reason, because it today's motion is not just about this parliament or the space. we should all know by now that democracy and decency are under assault the world over. mr speaker, if we fail to defend these values at every single institution we are part of, these values will decay and decline. it was george orwell who famously said that political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and i know that people are deeply fearful about just how language, and i know that people are deeply fearful aboutjust how real that prophecy has felt in the last few years. because when language decays, so does the truth and so does trust in our politics. prime minister who cannot be trusted with the truth marks the end of that very dangerous decline. so if today is about anything, it has to be about finally ending that decline. that decline did not start of this prime minister, but it needs to and with it —— and with it. we should be clear of the consequences of this house fails to act today. if we do not act, if we do not stop, then this parliament will be endorsing a new normal in this parliament and across our politics, a new normal where no one is held responsible, when no one is held to account and when no one is held to account and when no one is held to account and when no one, no one ever resides. and that is exactly where this mission matters, because it can and will only ever become a new normal if we put up with it. it only becomes normal if those responsible are not held to account and are not made to answer for are not held to account and are not made to answerfor their are not held to account and are not made to answer for their actions. 50 i would genuinely ask members from across the house, especially those members opposite, if they have any interest in maintaining some dignity and decency in public life, they should finally hold this prime minister to account for his actions and remove him from office. they should support this motion and they should support this motion and they should submit their letters of no confidence and they should finally show this prime minister the door. thank you for calling me so early in this debate to deliver my sermon at this debate to deliver my sermon at thisjunction, but if i may this debate to deliver my sermon at this junction, but if i may by means of parish notices on this day, i wish her majesty happy 96th birthday. my intention, and it still would be if it is moved, to vote against the government's amendment. i appreciate my right honourable friend the chief whip's efforts to find a way through, he is a way through, he is somebody we are lucky to have in his role. however, we were at risk of making a mistake was that the original motion is perfectly acceptable and allows for much of the spirit of the amendment. for example, the publication of the great reports will be automatic in the conclusion of the metropolitan police's work and there is no need to compete matters will stop the ukraine situation is of huge importance but it should not be a reason why we should accept lower standards ourselves. i have told the prime minister to his face that i think he is doing a good job robustly supporting the ukrainian government and her majesty's government, along with our nation, can be proud of their role and generosity. let us give credit where credit is due. however, much as though i may have tried, i cannot reconcile myself to be prime minister's continued leadership of our country and the conservative party. i say this by means of context, so that everyone, particularly my constituents and colleagues, can understand my position without hiding my views with ever more elaborate disguises. to those constituents who disagree with me, i appreciate that anger, just as i can the anger of colleagues. however, say what you mean and mean what you say. i submitted my letter of no confidence to the member for altrincham and sale west in december of last year and i did so for the following reason, followed the leak of allegra stratton mock press conference video. in that video, i believe that she did nothing wrong. she nervously laughed and sought to make light of an embarrassing situation. to see her crying on her doorstep, with the weight of anger of a country, was deeply moving and i hope that she is well and will be able to continue her distinguished career. but what alarmed me most was later that evening, a press preview of the winter covid plan b measures brought forward to try to move matters on, we debated those measures at length that we can agree, perhaps not in their extent but importance, but they sought to compel and restrict what people in this country could do. i therefore thought to myself of the government was prepared to bring such measures forward earlier in order to distract from its own embarrassment, the prime minister was no longerfit embarrassment, the prime minister was no longer fit to govern. i embarrassment, the prime minister was no longerfit to govern. i care deeply about my colleagues. i know that a number are struggling at the moment will stop we have been working in a toxic atmosphere will stop the parliamentary party bears the scars of misjudgment of leadership. they can be few colleagues on the side of the house who are truly enjoying being members of parliament at the moment. it is utterly depressing to be asked to defend the indefensible. each time, part of us with weathers. i have question to my place in this party in recent months and perhaps that is symptomatic of a swathe of elevators in the country, but i tell them firmly, i am in the country, but i tell them firmly, iam not in the country, but i tell them firmly, i am not going anywhere and i urge them to stick with us at the forthcoming elections. but for us to maintain their trust and confidence, we must be seen to do the right thing. it is our responsibility. it is the conservative parliamentary party's responsibility. we must stop delegating and delaying our politicaljudgment. we each only have our own limited and imperfect integrity. we cannot keep spending it on others who we cannot be sure will not let us down. i have great empathy for all those who worked at number ten and empathy for all those who worked at numberten and in empathy for all those who worked at number ten and in the cabinet office. they bore an immense burden and worked in intense pressure. they worked hard and made sacrifices and they also extend that same empathy to my right honourable friend the prime minister, who knows that more than most the personal challenges and personal battles that come and came from the pandemic. but the matter before us is one at the heart of this institution, our parliament. i love this place. believing it to be a place of high ideals and purpose. what is said here matters. quite apart from the facebook clips about roundabouts and drains in our constituencies, or indeed the confected anger to wind people up, it should be a case venerated by those of us given the singular honour of being sent here. of course it can be a pantomime, a farce, boring, obscure, but it should always be reasonably honest and it is for that i hope not that naive principle that i cannot support the amendment and i will vote for the main emotion.— main emotion. commander, mr macdonald. _ main emotion. commander, mr macdonald, you _ main emotion. commander, mr macdonald, you have _ main emotion. commander, mr macdonald, you have been - main emotion. commander, mr| macdonald, you have been here main emotion. commander, mr- macdonald, you have been here longer than most _ macdonald, you have been here longer than most people!— than most people! thank you very much, mr speaker. _ than most people! thank you very much, mr speaker. i— than most people! thank you very much, mr speaker. i warmly - than most people! thank you very - much, mr speaker. i warmly commend the honourable member. i think he spoke with great courage and honesty and with the integrity that i think and with the integrity that i think a lot of us have seen him show in his chairmanship of the committee and i think that this house knows that select committees and the chairing of select committees is not always easy, because quite often people come to select committee meetings with fixed views, not all that interested in the evidence that is presented to them and they resolutely hold the same of you afterwards that they held at the beginning of the meeting, even though everything has been proved to be quite the opposite of what they thought. but i think, i know from those who sit on his committee, that he lessons at the evidence and he is a very good parliamentarian as chair of the committee. i thought it all got a bit religious earlier and i thought i was back at theological college. being the only person, i think, theological college. being the only person, ithink, in theological college. being the only person, i think, in the house you can pronounce absolution on anybody... laughter mac i thought i was suddenly going to get a newjob. can i start missing and want to also commend the work the chief whip has done this week because he has got us today into a much better place than the house would have been if he had not made the decisions that he doubtless advised by others has made today. i had not expected to speak in this debate. i will be very straight with the house, if you see what i mean. which is that it is sometimes very difficult being chair of standards and privileges because you get asked to comment on literally every single member of the house at some point. i am absolutely scrupulous in making sure i never comment in public or in private on anything that might possibly come to either of the committees. i didn't think this matter would come to the privileges committee, which is why i commented on it. and consequently, i think it is quite right that i recuse myself, i will not take part in the deliberations of the committee on this matter, if the emotion goes through in any shape or form. i think i could have done it fairly, i chaired the standards committee when we had the prime minister before us on a different matter, and we find we disagreed with the commission and found in the prime minister's favour, but i understand the house needs to know absolutely for certain that the process will be fair, and so, any strange way, that means i can actually say something today. can i commend him _ actually say something today. can i commend him for _ actually say something today. can i commend him for his _ actually say something today. (115ng i commend him for his speech and his thoreau sense of decency, but i wonder if he thinks the same principle should apply to other members of the privileges committee? i will say something later about the privileges committee, but having recuse myself, i don't think it is really for me to tell them what to do or how to behave... the one thing i'm very keen on is, i passionately care about parliament, i believe in democracy, it's the only way i can get change for my constituents, through the democratic process, and anything that undermines trusting and confidence in parliament damage is my opportunity to do anything useful in my life at all. which is why i always want to urge the house to be extremely careful in these matters of standards and privileges. each generation of mps has a special responsibility to burnish, not tarnish the reputation of this house. because we hand democracy onto a future generation, and if we have undermined it, it may not last. ijust have undermined it, it may not last. i just drawn to the house's attention, that in this parliament, two mps have been found guilty of serious offences in the court of law and another two are awaiting trial. four mps have been suspended for one day, a minister was suspended for seven days, and seven mps have been required to apologise to the house for breaches of the code of conduct. three mps have resigned their seats in the face of convictions. the independent expert panel has suspended a memberfor six independent expert panel has suspended a member for six weeks for sexual harassment, made another apologise for building staff, and found another guilty of such terrible sexual harassment that he resigned his seat before the sanction came to the house. that is without any consideration of the matter of whether an honourable member or right honourable member has lied to the house. and it is not yet six months since the own patterson saga, which i don't think really covered the house in glory. and, in a very short period of time, two of our colleagues have been murdered. and others are wearing stab vests. we have to take the reputation of the house extremely seriously. we have to burnish it, not tarnish it. and i have heard ministers argue quite rightly that there has to be due process. i would say to the house this is the due process. it always has been the due process. it always has been the due process. when there has been a claim that either a member of the public orany that either a member of the public or any member of the house might have committed a contempt of parliament, and by lying to the house or breaching the confidentiality around a select committee report or whatever, the standard process is that it is sent to the committee of privileges, or is it used to be, the committee of standards and privileges, before that, the committee of privileges, so this is the due process. and i have absolute confidence in the other members of the committee that they will do a good job. they will think very carefully about, is the right honourable member for stone said, making sure there is a fair hearing. because the court of public opinion isn't very good at providing a fair hearing, i find. opinion isn't very good at providing a fair hearing, ifind. the house should do a great deal better than the court of public opinion. we try to uphold the rule of law, is one of the duties for all mp5, and sol think it is particularly important we make sure there is a fair process, and i'm sure the other committee members will do so. he makes committee members will do so. ike: makes a very powerful and important contribution, mostly in relation to members of parliament, but even though occasionally someone feels it necessary to use parliamentary privilege to say within the house things which those outside might otherwise sue for defamation over. can you just confirm he will consider whether we ought to have a right to reply for the public, so if we use privilege, they have some chance to put their side of the story? chance to put their side of the sto ? ., ., ., , , chance to put their side of the sto ? :, :, :, , , :, ~' , chance to put their side of the sto ? ., ., ., , , ., «i , ., story? the honourable member makes a ve aood story? the honourable member makes a very good point — story? the honourable member makes a very good point and _ story? the honourable member makes a very good point and we've _ story? the honourable member makes a very good point and we've had _ story? the honourable member makes a very good point and we've had some - very good point and we've had some discussions outside the chamber about this. the difficulty is, not sure that as a matter for the committee of standards and privileges. i think it is a matter for the committee on procedure. i think there is a very good argument for putting something in place for there is a right of reply. i can go further, for reasons he may be aware of. —— can't go further. i further, for reasons he may be aware of. -- can't go further.— of. -- can't go further. i don't want to _ of. -- can't go further. i don't want to open _ of. -- can't go further. i don't want to open this _ of. -- can't go further. i don't want to open this into - of. -- can't go further. i don't want to open this into that. of. -- can't go further. i don't. want to open this into that area of. -- can't go further. i don't - want to open this into that area of debate. _ want to open this into that area of debate. i— want to open this into that area of debate, i know exactly what is going on, anything we can leave that part of it there — on, anything we can leave that part of it there. , ... on, anything we can leave that part of it there. , .., ,., on, anything we can leave that part of it there-— of it there. the second point i was auoin to of it there. the second point i was going to make _ of it there. the second point i was going to make about _ of it there. the second point i was going to make about fair - of it there. the second point i was going to make about fair process i of it there. the second point i was | going to make about fair process is that it going to make about fair process is thatitis going to make about fair process is that it is actually quite a high bar the committee on privileges will have to consider. i think it is, the order of the opposition said earlier, not debated that the house was misled. i think even the prime minister effectively admits the house was misled. it was said that the rules were broken and it is self evident that rules were broken, so the house was misled. the question is whether that was intentional. and the committee will have to devise ways of investigating whether there was an intention. and in fact, well... i think i ought to give way over there first. i well. .. i think i ought to give way over there first.— over there first. i think the honourable _ over there first. i think the honourable gentleman - over there first. i think the - honourable gentleman forgiving over there first. i think the _ honourable gentleman forgiving way, he is making an excellent and poignant speech, but does he not find it strange and deeply worrying that we seem to be in the position that we seem to be in the position that the prime minister seemed unable or am that the prime minister seemed unable oram capable that the prime minister seemed unable or am capable of following his own rules, and his own laws, yet he is using the rules of this place and the processes of this place to frustrate the course of, as one member has say, naturaljustice? well, i would normally agree with her on these kind of things, and i sort of would have agreed with their last night, but i think we're getting to a better place now. i think, any sense, sometimes the backbenchers persuade the frontbenchers of a better course of action. i'm looking intently at the cheap web at the moment, the government chief whip. i was going to say, mr speaker, as the clerk advised in the case of whether stephen byers had misled the house on a single location in 2001, in order to find that mr byers committed a contempt, in the evident session of the 14th of november 2001, the committee will need to satisfy itself not only that he misled the subcommittee, but that he did so unknowingly or deliberately. as i say, that is quite a high bar, but it is for the committee to decide that. i but it is for the committee to decide that.— but it is for the committee to decide that. ., ., ., decide that. i am grateful for the honourable _ decide that. i am grateful for the honourable gentleman. - decide that. i am grateful for the honourable gentleman. first - decide that. i am grateful for the honourable gentleman. first of. decide that. i am grateful for the i honourable gentleman. first of all, what he has just said is what i am going to raise with them. the actual requirement under the ministerial code does say that it is open to a minister to correct any inadvertent area at the earliest opportunity, ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister. the question is, knowingly, and i am very grateful to him for making that point clear. the only difference i would have with them as he was talking about the ministerial code. the ministerial code is for the prime minister. this house adjudicates on its rules, its code of conduct, and contempt of parliament. so they are different matters, this is about upholding a simple principle around making sure ministers speak honestly. i would say one other thing about the committee. it is very important that the six members of the committee are not pressurised by anybody. members may not be aware that the attorney general and solicitor general are able to attend those meetings, are able to attend those meetings, are able to attend those meetings, are able to take part in the deliberations were not allowed to move amendments or vote, but it is very important the committee is able to do its business without being lent on by anyone. the final point i would make, mr speaker, is why! think all of this is important, is because i care far more about what is happening in ukraine, and on the cost of living crisis, than about this, for more. i have constituents who are in tears who have absently no idea how they're going to pay bills, rent, and how they will find school uniforms and things like that. they are in tears. and all of us have seen the horror in ukraine. i said it in 2014 if we did not take vladimir putin former seriously, if we did not impose for stricter sanctions in 2014, he would end up coming for the rest of ukraine. 50 i care far more about those things and i do critically about this motion today. but they are not alternatives. i would argue it may be in coming months that the prime minister will have to come to this house and say we are going to have to change our strategy on russia, we may have to consider offensive weaponry, we may have to consider british troops being put in a place of danger. similarly, the prime minister may have to come to this house and say i have to ask the british people to make further sacrifices, because the economy is in a very difficult place, and public finances are in a very difficult place. you need to, at a moment of national and international crisis, a leader of completely and utterly unimpeachable moral authority. i don't think we have that at the moment. i don't think we have that by a long shot. that is why these two things are intimately connected and not separate. it is why i believe this must be referred to the committee on privileges. thank you, mr speaker. can i say i appreciate and respect the seriousness of tone the right honourable member the chair of the privileges committee just brought to the debate. i respect the work he does as chair of the committee, and i respect the work of the other members of the committee to it. that seriousness of tone i believe is an important one that we should try and adhere to. it is inevitable there will be a party political over this, and it is inevitable that we the proximity of local elections, party political elements and electoral considerations will intrude, as they have today, and i'm sure as they will be in the way that whatever is decided will be reported later. at the end of the day, the debate we are dealing with is about a very serious matter, and it is therefore a serious tone. the right honourable gentleman referred to his past calling, i'm going to put it that way, influencing his approach, and i respect that. perhaps i can do the same. i am very conscious, i was a lawyer before i became a politician, and i will be a lawyer after i finish being a politician. and therefore, i hope to approach decisions like this from the perspective of a lawyer, and that may cause make... perhaps i can make a little bit of progress before i give way. that may cause me in the view of some to be cautious, but i would rather be accused of being cautious than be accused of acting upon inadequate evidence or without a full and proper process. so that is the preamble to what i'm about to say. i will give way. is is the preamble to what i'm about to say. i will give way.— say. i will give way. is the problem not, and say. i will give way. is the problem not. and let's— say. i will give way. is the problem not, and let's assume _ say. i will give way. is the problem not, and let's assume that - say. i will give way. is the problem not, and let's assume that the - say. i will give way. is the problem l not, and let's assume that the prime minister inadvertently misled the house, and from the beginning he was not straight with us, even if he knew he was at a birthday, a sing song with a birthday cake, why did he delay it for such a long time to be straight with as many as are of the opinion, say "aye". to the contrary, "no" and isn't the point that we are here today so close to the local election, the delay that has been caused by he himself, not by us on the opposition benches? i don't think i would actually... with respect to the honourable lady, i will touch upon some of those matters, i'm not going to follow directly down that route. what we are talking about is an important and serious matter. notjust because it relates to the incidents which are reported, and i think now to some degree are accepted to have happened in number 10 downing street, but it relates to a general culture and attitude and it's important for this house, because it relates to three important things, which i certainly hold there and hope all the household there. one is theissue hope all the household there. one is the issue of public trust. the second is respect for the rule of law and that in the context of adherence to the laws, and the fact that the laws made by this house must be adhered to by all equally. the third point i wish to make is that respect for the rule of law also means respect for procedural fairness. that is the point i'm going to come onto any moment. i know one of the honourable members opposite wanted to intervene, i will do that then come to my honourable friend. i do that then come to my honourable friend. :, ~i do that then come to my honourable friend. ., «i ., ., ., , friend. i do think the honourable gentleman _ friend. i do think the honourable gentleman for— friend. i do think the honourable gentleman for giving _ friend. i do think the honourable gentleman for giving way, - friend. i do think the honourable gentleman for giving way, and l friend. i do think the honourable gentleman for giving way, and i | friend. i do think the honourable i gentleman for giving way, and i will just put on the record he has been extremely courteous to me on a personal level ever since my first appearance here. i have great respect for the honourable member. i suspect that he, like i, and i speak as a scot, is a unionist, and debentures in front of me know that, i believe in the united kingdom, the benefits of the union between scotland, and england and northern ireland and wales. but part of the reason it works is this exactly what the honourable gentleman was talking about, the respect for this place and the way we do things. the point i make is this, does the honourable gentleman think that the continuation of the prime minister in office will strengthen or threaten that precious union? figs in office will strengthen or threaten that precious union? $5 i threaten that precious union? as i will make threaten that precious union? " i will make apparent shortly, i will come to my conclusion as to the position of the prime minister, as i am entitled to as a conservative member of parliament, once i have had full evidence. the importance of the respect of this institution in the respect of this institution in the various parts of the united kingdom is, of course, well—made, and i take that on board. i am kingdom is, of course, well-made, and i take that on board. i am most crateful to and i take that on board. i am most grateful to my _ and i take that on board. i am most grateful to my honourable - and i take that on board. i am most grateful to my honourable friend i and i take that on board. i am most| grateful to my honourable friend and would also like to commend his committee and his own role in this in the investigation that took place with respect to the issue of fixed penalty notices, and just a note that the council for domestic legislation, as he will remember, says there is a great deal and lack of clarity as to what regulations apply to specific situations at what times, and so on, as i shall refer to if i'm called later. the bottom line is, to ensure the chairman of this committee is very distinguished, appreciates the relation to the rule of law question here is just made, relation to the rule of law question here isjust made, is by no means clear exactly what the law is on the subjects. clear exactly what the law is on the sub'ects. �* ., ., , subjects. i'm gratefulto my honourable _ subjects. i'm gratefulto my honourable friend _ subjects. i'm gratefulto my honourable friend for - subjects. i'm gratefulto my honourable friend for his . honourable friend for his observation. perhaps that brings me onto the point i was going to make. the subject of the motion is of course not of itself the fixed penalty notice that was accepted by the prime minister or any of the otherfixed penalty the prime minister or any of the other fixed penalty notices, the prime minister or any of the otherfixed penalty notices, it the prime minister or any of the other fixed penalty notices, it was, as he is rightly so, the question of whether or not there was a deliberate misleading of the house. i think that is the common ground. of course the fixed penalty notices of course the fixed penalty notices are part of the factual background that give rise to that, and he is quite right to say the justice committee was critical of the fixed penalty regime that was brought in on a number of accounts, and in particular, the confusion that existed in many people's mines, ordinary individuals whose cases would never be the subject of any comment in this house or the media, the distinction or non—distinction sometimes between guidance and law. we were critical of that and critical also of the use of fixed penalty notices for what were specifically described, and this is worth putting on the record, as criminal offences, because i did take the trouble to look again at the regulations. the original 2000 regulations, which were then amended shortly before the incident in which we were concerned, specifically set out in terms that a failure to comply with a restriction under regulations creates an offence, and the word offence is specifically used in the regulation. 50 we should not minimise that. we should not therefore say this is a civil matter. this is equivalent to a parking ticket, it is not. that is a simple question of fact. the ministry ofjustice accepted that in the statement made at the time regulations were brought in, and the justice community when carrying out that inquiry, heard that in evidence from the noble lord when he gave evidence to us, and also from sir jonathanjones qc, the former treasury solicitor. that is in fact common ground. i will equally accept, that within the range of fixed penalties, if expense a notice of £50 is at the lowest end, pretty much at the lower end of the scale. something that these select committee raised about the level of expense notices that were appropriate to be dealt with by way of fixed penalty rather than fine. that is by way of background. that is all very well. therefore, we are dealing with something which was an offence, accepting the fixed penalty discharges, and if you like, deals with a criminal matter, but it does not change its nature. we should not try and minimise it. and i don't, and i will see, and i will come to a final decision about the prime minister's decision, that i'm profoundly disappointed in what has happened at number 10 downing street, people were badly let down. my street, people were badly let down. my constituents feel badly let down. i feel personally badly let down by what happened. and there must be consequences that follow from that. now, what the consequence is, i think anyone would accept in fairness, depends upon an ultimate assessment of the measure of culpability. and that is why i would prefer both in making my own personal decision and ultimately the house making a decision, to wait until we have the full evidence and information before us. and so had the amendment be made today i would have happily have voted for it, because i do think full evidence includes notjust the conclusion of the police investigations, a nuisance of any other fixed penalty notice, but also the so great a poem notice, but also the so great a poor, as anyone would appreciate it is very likely to include material which gives background and context which gives background and context which goes beyond the strict requirements of what is factually, the statement of facts that go to 20 notice —— sue great report. a tantalising moment to move away from the commons. the conservative mp building up to saying whether he will or won't support the motion today, being put by the labour party, later at the start of this debate about circular starmer saying this debate is about honesty, integrity and telling the truth in parliament. he said the prime minister has been accused of deliberately and repeatedly misleading the house. it's a serious accusation and it is not made lightly. he said the prime minister's supporters don't seek to defend, but to dismiss by saying there are other worse crimes, but he said those sorts of arguments erode the status of the house and weaken democracy, honesty and parliament as a fundamental pillar on what are the marxist belt. the premise at the start of the debate, we have heard from william ragu said he will be voting for that motion, gave a strong speech about his strength of feeling on this. coverage of that continues on bbc parliament. her majesty the queen celebrates her 96th birthday today and the event has been marked by a special gun salute at hyde park in london this photo's been released to mark the queen's birthday. it was taken at windsor castle and shows the queen with two fell ponies — one is reported to be called bybeck katie, and the other bybeck nightingale. it's a big yearfor queen — with all sorts of events coming up to mark her 70 years on the throne. as part of those platinum jubilee celebrations, westminster abbey has come up with a new visitor experience — opening its roof to the public for the first time. our royal correspondent, daniela relph reports it is a familiar view of westminster abbey, secure at ground level. but visitors are about to be offered a different perspective, way up high. we followed the route to the roof, first through the diamond jubilee gallery to start the walk to the top. dress comfy, wear trainers, and make sure you have a head for heights. the walk up is quite tight. i'm around five foot eight, and i'm having to duck my head at times. but we're promised the view at the top will be worth it. and as you step out, it is spectacular. the panoramic views over london, and you're now up close to the detail of this historic building. for these great landmarks, finding a unique experience is always a challenge, something thatjust feels really special. this rooftop is westminster abbey's offer to visitors, seeing somewhere that few others have ever been. for me, it's the sense of calm that's up here. 50, down parliament square, down on the floor of the abbey, can be very busy, full of visitors, full of life. but it's just nice to be above it and just have a look at things and take in the view. we're not a museum, so we don't have the ability to change our exhibition at all. so we want to sort of celebrate this summer, and show people a new side to the abbey. exploring every corner. the walk across the lead roof is careful, but straightforward, once you've made it up. if you dare, the look down gives that added sense of perspective. these would normally hover overhead. up here, you can look them in the eye. there is something magical about being in amongst the rooftops, seeing the shine of a cleaned up big ben. in this platinum jubilee year, it is an opportunity to view this historic building in a different way. daniela relph, bbc news, westminster abbey. now it's time for a look at the weather with darren bett. plenty of sunshine around for us today, we may see a bit more cloud over the next few days. we are developing a pattern that will remain in the next few days with higher pressure to the north of the uk. lower pressure to the south, and that means we have a run of easterly winds bringing air all the way from finland and the baltic sea. over the next few days, those easterly when set to strengthen. with that one direction, always want to be warmer in the west. not a great deal of rain in the forecast over the next few days either. dry weather continues across large parts of the country. a lot of dry weather around through the rest of the day, lots of sunshine, warm and land into the west. killeraround sunshine, warm and land into the west. killer around some of the north sea coasts and the one coming up north sea coasts and the one coming up to see —— cooler. could be some mist and low cloud, a bit more overnight. also want to find some cloud getting dragged in overnight, clear skies out towards the west. temperatures are going to be typically a 4—6 c. we start with more cloud across england and wales, that will get dragged down towards the south of wales, across southern parts of england, could be one or two light showers. should get more sunshine as you head for the north, away from some low cloud and misty weather, rents and some northernmost parts of scotland. temperatures similar to what we are seeing today, 16 or 17 degrees across large parts of the country, cooler in the stronger winds that we have got across some of those north sea coasts. for many areas, those pollen areas dropping a little bit on friday, the wind picking up and a bit more cloud around. we will see some cloud at times over the weekend, still got high pressure to the north of bigotry of low pressure bringing some very wet weather into some other parts of europe. we have strong easterly winds on saturday, going to stop the cloud, could be showers in there as well. cloud will tend to get pushed away towards the west, allowing sunnier skies to return more widely a saturday afternoon goes on. again, it will be windy and temperatures probably reaching 16 or 17 degrees. near the north sea coast, only around 12. sunday has a brisk wind, tends to ease down, more sunshine for england and wales, and also across northern ireland, but more cloud coming in to scotland on that is showing some colder air, that will push its way southwards next week. mps vote today on whether there should be an inquiry into claims the prime minister misled parliament about lockdown parties. borisjohnson himself is thousands of miles away on a trade mission to india — he says any inquiry should come after the full facts are known. all i would say is i don't think that that should happen until the investigation is completed, and that's my only point. it was all a long time ago. every time... every time one of these arguments is trotted out, the status of this house is gradually eroded. the government has now dropped attempts to delay today's commons vote. also this lunchtime... russia abandons plans to storm the steelworks in mariupol