regardless of the actual number of nhs places, regardless of any data that might indicate that the nhs would be overwhelmed, or when it would be overwhelmed, or when it would occur, and regardless of the number of additional deaths that would be because if you didn't at, the nature of the exponential growth was such that huge numbers of additional deaths were inevitable at some point and you simply couldn't gamble that they would not eventually occur. is that the nub of it? i eventually occur. is that the nub of it? ., ., 4' eventually occur. is that the nub of it? c, ., ~ , eventually occur. is that the nub of it? y, c, _ eventually occur. is that the nub of it? y, c, it? i took very seriously and listened very _ it? i took very seriously and listened very hard _ it? i took very seriously and listened very hard to - it? i took very seriously and listened very hard to chris l it? i took very seriously and i listened very hard to chris and patrick and it felt like me as though they were basically saying that the uk was now in a position where we had to do everything we could to restrain contact and that that was our best shot at protecting the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was our best shot at protecting the nhs and saving lives.— the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i _ the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. _ the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. may _ the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. may i _ the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. may i stop - the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. may i stop for - the nhs and saving lives. 50 that was what i did. may i stop for a l was what i did. may i stop for a second~ — was what i did. may i stop for a second. you mentioned earlier, mr johnson, _ second. you mentioned earlier, mr johnson, about how some say you shouldwt— johnson, about how some say you shouldn't have lockdown at all. when you did _ shouldn't have lockdown at all. when you did decide that we had to lockdown, did you consider the arguments to say you should never go that far_ arguments to say you should never go that far and _ arguments to say you should never go that far and oppose that level of draconian— that far and oppose that level of draconian restriction on the population? did you consider the argument — population? did you consider the argument against lockdown? | population? did you consider the argument against lockdown? i did and, i argument against lockdown? i did and. i mean. _ argument against lockdown? i did and, i mean, i'm— argument against lockdown? i did and, i mean, i'm afraid _ argument against lockdown? i c c and, i mean, i'm afraid to say at that stage i gave it pretty short shrift because i thought that myjob was to protect human life and that is the number one duty of government. i thought that if the nhs was overwhelmed, then the risk of truly tragic scenes in the uk of the kind we had seen in lombardy was very real. and thank heavens that did not happen, thanks to the amazing work of the nhs and, as i said at the beginning, hundreds of thousands of people, but i felt i had to do what i could to give them the best possible chance and i had no other, i had no other tool, literally nothing else.- no other, i had no other tool, literally nothing else. thank you. is that why. _ literally nothing else. thank you. is that why. mr _ literally nothing else. thank you. is that why, mrjohnson, - literally nothing else. thank you. - is that why, mrjohnson, examination of the covid—i9 strategy ministerial group meeting on the saturday the covid—i9 strategy ministerial group meeting on the monday morning at 9:15am, and of the cobra meeting that we have looked at at 5pm on the monday, shows very little, if any debate, about the countervailing non—public health argument? it is just not there? non-public health argument? it is just not there?— non-public health argument? it is just not there? that doesn't mean it wasn't happening- — just not there? that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. we _ just not there? that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. we are _ just not there? that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. we are leaving i just not there? that doesn't mean it| wasn't happening. we are leaving the inquiry at that point i'm going to the house of commons. you are watching bbc news. suella braverman, the former home secretary, is due to give a personal statement in the house of commons. it give a personal statement in the house of commons.— give a personal statement in the house of commons. it has been a true honour and — house of commons. it has been a true honour and i — house of commons. it has been a true honour and i am _ house of commons. it has been a true honour and i am thankful— house of commons. it has been a true honour and i am thankful for _ house of commons. it has been a true honour and i am thankful for the - honour and i am thankfulfor the opportunities and grateful to the many civil servants and ministers with whom i worked. we achieved a great deal in the last 12 months. landmark legislation in the public order act and the national security act. 20,000 new police officers, more than england and wales have ever seen before. one of the largest ever seen before. one of the largest ever pay rises for the police. greater powers to dismiss rogue officers, and a review of the legal protections to empower our brave firearms officers. but, madam deputy speaker, i want to talk about the crisis on which i spent more time working than any other. mass, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. we are all here familiar with the problem. tens of thousands of mostly young men, many with values and social morals at odds with our own, pouring into our country day after day, month after month, year after year. many come from safe countries, many are not refugees, but are economic migrants. all have paid thousands of pounds to criminal gangs to break into britain. all have come from a safe country, france, who, let's face it, should be doing so much more to stop them. this is pretty unsustainable pressure on our public finances and our public services. it is training community cohesion, jeopardising national security and harming public safety. the british people all understand this, madam deputy speaker. the question is, does the government? and will it now finally act to stop it? the prime minister, rightly, committed to doing whatever it takes to stop the boats and he should be commended for dedicating more time and toil and any of his predecessors to this endeavour. and unlike the leader of the opposition, who would rather bury his head in the sand, he has actually advanced a plan. we made some progress during my tenure as home secretary. the overall crossings have fallen by 30%. the number of illegal albanian arrivals down by 90%. and we were starting to close down asylum hotels. but, madam deputy speaker, crossings are down is not the same as stopping the boats. and as home secretary are consistently advocated for legislative measures that would have secured the delivery of our rwanda partnership as soon as the bill became law. last summer, following defeat in the court of appeal, i advised that we should scrap rather than continue passage of the illegal migration act, bill, in favour of a more robust alternative that excluded international and human rights laws. when that was rejected are urged that we needed to work up a credible plan be in the event of a supreme court loss. following defeat in the supreme court, the prime minister has finally agreed to introduce emergency legislation and i welcome his decision. madam deputy speaker, it is now three weeks on from that judgment and we are yet to see a bill. i am told its publication is imminent, but we are running out of time, this is an emergency, and we need to see the bill now. madam deputy speaker, my deeper concern, however, it relates to the substance of what may be in that bill. previous attempts have failed because they did not address the root cause of the problem. expansive human rights laws flowing from the european convention on human rights, replicated in labour�*s human rights act, are being interpreted elastically by courts, domestic and foreign, to literally prevent our rwanda plan from getting off the ground. and this problem relates to so much more thanjust illegal arrivals. from my time as home secretary i can say that the same human rights framework is producing insanities that the public would scarcely believe. foreign terrorists we can't deport because of their human rights. terrorists we have to let back in because of their human rights. foreign rapists and paedophiles who should have been removed but are released back into the community only to reoffend, yes, because of their human rights. violent criminals pulled off deportation flights at the last minute thanks to the help of labour mps, free to wander the streets and commit further horrific crimes, including murder. protesters are let off the hook for tearing down statues and gluing themselves to roads. and our brave military veterans harassed through the courts some a0 years after their service. madam deputy speaker, it is no secret that i support leaving the european convention on human rights and replacing the human rights act with a british bill of rights that protect the vulnerable and our national security and finishes the job of brexit by extricating us from a foreign court and restores real parliamentary supremacy. but i accept that the government will not do that and that is a debate for another day and, crucially, when it comes to stopping the boats now, leaving the echr is not the only way to cut the gordian knot. emergency legislation would enable this only if it passes the foreign tests —— following test. it must address the supreme court was much concern about the safety of rwanda. secondly, the bill must enable flights before the next election by blocking off all routes of challenge, the powers to detain and remove must be exerciseable notwithstanding the human rights act, the european convention on human rights, the refugee convention, and all other international law. thirdly, the bill must remedy deficiencies in the illegal migration act to ensure that removals can take place within days, rather than allowing individual claims and challenges which dragged on for months. for, the bill must enable the administrative detention of illegal arrivals until they are removed. and just as we rapidly built nightingale hospitals to deal with covid, so we must build nightingale style detention facilities to deliver the necessary capacity. greece and turkey have done so. greece and turkey have done so aren't the only way to do this, as i advocated for in government, is with the support of the ministry of defence. fifth, parliament must be prepared to sit over christmas to get this bill done. all of this, madam deputy speaker, comes down to the simple question of who governs britain? where does ultimate authority for the uk lie? is it with the british people and their elected representative? or is it in the vague, shifting and unaccountable concept of international law? on monday, the prime minister announced measures that start to better reflect public frustration on illegal migration. he can now follow that up with a bill that reflect public fury on illegal migration and actually stop the boats. finally, it is now or never. the conservative party faces electoral oblivion in a matter of months if we introduce... the conservative party faces electoral oblivion in a matter of months if we introduce yet another bill destined to fail. do we fight for sovereignty or do we let our party die? now, i may not have always found the right words in the past, madam deputy speaker, buti refuse to sit by and allow us to fail. the trust that millions of people placed in us cannot be discarded as an inconvenient detail. if we summon the political courage to do what is truly necessary, difficult though it may be, to fight for the british people, we will regain their trust. and if the prime minister leaves that fight —— leads that fight, he has my total support. thank you. taste that fight, he has my total support. thank ou. ~ ., ., ., ., thank you. we now move on to the presentation _ thank you. we now move on to the presentation of _ thank you. we now move on to the presentation of bills. _ studio: so braverman giving a speech in the house of commons and she talks about the legal challenge being faced concerning the plan to have flights going to rwanda. harry farley is joining us from westminster. harry, the nub of what she said is the uk needed to find a way to circumnavigate the powers of the european court forjustice, did she not? the european court for “ustice, did she not? , ., �* , ,, she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill — she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill that _ she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill that aims _ she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill that aims to _ she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill that aims to stop - she not? yes, that's right. she said the new bill that aims to stop legal| the new bill that aims to stop legal challenges to stop sending asylum seekers to iran the, she said the government must build emergency detention facilities to house people coming into the country illegally before they are sent to rwanda. she called those nightingale facilities, after the nightingale hospitals that were built during the covid pandemic. she also said that parliament must be prepared to sit over christmas in order to pass this legislation. i think there are two things going on here. firstly, it is