seen that widely across the uk for quite awhile. any snow should clear away quickly and we robertjenrick was a close friend and ally of rishi sunak�*s — even he doesn't believe this new emergency legislation will work. we'll talk to a former conservative attorney general, labour's chair of the home affairs select committee, and a former conservative mep. also tonight... sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering. an apology from boris johnson to relatives of those who died during the pandemic. at the covid inquiry he admitted both he and the scientists underestimated how fast covid was spreading. we should have twigged, we should collectively have twigged much sooner. we'll speak to michael rosen, who spent 42 days in a coma with covid, and was outside the inquiry this morning along with other protestors. also — us funding for ukraine is on the brink of collapse. what will that mean for president zelensky and president putin? hello. the emergency bill published by the government this evening to apparently get planes to rwanda taking off is �*a triumph of hope over experience�*, according to the man who quit as immigration minster tonight. in his resignation letter, robertjenrick said he couldn't take the legislation through the commons because he doesn't believe it will actually work — people arriving on boats will still be able to appeal against removal from the uk using domestic and foreign courts, he says. you'll remember rishi sunak at the start of this year promised to �*stop the boats�* completely — and he later claimed he would do �*whatever it takes�*. mrjenrick clearly feels the pm didn�*t mean that last bit. on the front of the new bill, the home secretary james cleverly states he is unable to say whether it is compatible with human rights legislation. pretty similar to the sentiment printed on the front of the last bill which was going to stop the small boat arrivals and send people to rwanda. nick is here, there�*s a lot going on, what�*s happening? this nick is here, there's a lot going on, what's happening?- nick is here, there's a lot going on, what's happening? this is of course a personal— on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow - on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow to - on, what's happening? this is of course a personal blow to the i on, what's happening? this is of. course a personal blow to the prime minister because as you say, and robertjenrick were meant to be political allies. robertjenrick were meant to be politicalallies. it�*s robertjenrick were meant to be political allies. it�*s a political blow because robertjenrick was meant to be taking this emergency legislation through the house of commons. but it turns out that in the end cambridge wins out, that�*s because robertjenrick and suella braverman have been good friends ever since they were at university together, and as we now know, they are on the same political planet. and just to get an idea of that, let us look at robertjenrick�*s resignation letter to the prime minister, and you can see there, he is saying, thank you for our discussions, you did move towards my position but then he says, i am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the commons as i do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success. and then look at this. the bill you�*re proposing a triumph of hope over experience. we wait a few hours and then we got the response from the prime minister, and some of the language in that, if we look at that letter, is pretty strong. it says, this bill is the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by the uk government and then it says, it makes clear that parliament deems rwanda safe, that answering one of the main points of the supreme court, and then it says it disapply is the relevant parts of the human rights act and makes clear it is for ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunctions issued by the european court of rights. that is saying, we are going to make it all but impossible to challenge you being removed to rwanda in the courts. then it goes on to say that the rwandan government wouldn�*t accept this if we went any further, so if we go down your route of the prime ministers saying, we wouldn�*t have a deal. ministers saying, we wouldn't have a deal. �* ., ., , , ., ., deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's the _ deal. but what does this mean for the legislation? it's the second i the legislation? it�*s the second reading next week, isn�*t it? i the legislation? it's the second reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally — reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of— reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the _ reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the prime _ reading next week, isn't it? i spoke to one ally of the prime minister. to one ally of the prime minister and they say this is a bad omen for rishi sunak. the right have been meeting tonight and their view is that this resignation means that robertjenrick can�*t vote for this bill, it means other people on the right convert for it, you only need 28 mp5 right convert for it, you only need 28 mps to rebel and the legislation will not get through. so what they think might happen, they don�*t know whether it will happen, it might happen, is that rishi sunak could, they think, turn it into a confidence vote, which is, if you vote down this you�*re effectively voting down the government. they say, if he does that we will vote for it to keep the whip and then we will stick in no—confidence letters in the prime minister. will stick in no-confidence letters in the prime minister.— will stick in no-confidence letters in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank ou in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very _ in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. _ in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's - in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's a - in the prime minister. really? 0k, thank you very much. there's a lotj thank you very much. there�*s a lot to absorb there, a lot to ingest. we asked for an interview with the government, they declined. with robertjenrick and didn�*t get a repsonse. we also tried multiple conservative mps who might support the government�*s new emergency legislation, but so far without joy. we are on until 11:15, please dm me on twitter. let�*s speak to former conservative mp and former attorney general for england and wales from 2010 to 2014, dominc grieve, labour�*s dame diana johnson, she�*s chair of the home affairs select committee, and former conservative mep david campbell bannerman. right, let me start with you, mr campbell bannerman, a quote, as nick did there, rishi sunak�*s letter to mrjenrick, saying it�*s the toughest piece of anti—illegal migration legislation ever, it deems rwanda safe and no court can disagree with that, and this applies parts of the human rights act, from your point of view and robertjenrick�*s point of view, what�*s wrong with that? it�*s view, what's wrong with that? it's what view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robertjenrick view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robert jenrick said, view, what's wrong with that? it�*s what robertjenrick said, the problem is it doesn�*t... this notwithstanding motion doesn�*t actually get us out of the european court of human rights legislation, and that is a big problem. and you know, the excuse is that rwanda doesn�*t, you know, won�*t allow this. rwanda is not in the council of europe, as far as i can see. so that is... , ., ., europe, as far as i can see. so that is... legislation... sorry to interruot. _ is... legislation... sorry to interrupt, but— is... legislation... sorry to interrupt, but the - is... legislation... sorry to i interrupt, but the legislation, is... legislation... sorry to - interrupt, but the legislation, i have read it, makes it clear that it�*s for ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunction that might be issued with the european court of rights. i was at the erg last _ the european court of rights. i was at the erg last night, _ the european court of rights. i was at the erg last night, and - the european court of rights. i —" at the erg last night, and that was exactly what was discussed, but they do have this legal... the test is, is it going to work? are we going to get flights to rwanda with immediate effect? and i think that is the ultimate test. and it doesn�*t look like it will work, i�*m afraid. and thatis like it will work, i�*m afraid. and that is very, very serious for the government. it is serious for rishi sunak especially. i government. it is serious for rishi sunak especially.— sunak especially. i will come back to that and _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get — sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you to _ sunak especially. i will come back to that and get you to describe i sunak especially. i will come back. to that and get you to describe what you mean by serious, but dominic grieve, let me come to you. the substance of mrjenrick�*s resignation letter is that individuals will still be able to make claims against being removed to both domestic and international courts, is he right? he both domestic and international courts, is he right?— courts, is he right? he is right it would be possible _ courts, is he right? he is right it would be possible for— courts, is he right? he is right it| would be possible for individuals courts, is he right? he is right it. would be possible for individuals to argue _ would be possible for individuals to argue that — would be possible for individuals to argue that even though rwanda is a safe country, there are exceptional circumstances mean they shouldn't be sent there _ circumstances mean they shouldn't be sent there. and it's also right that somebody will bring, undoubtedly, a challenge _ somebody will bring, undoubtedly, a challenge in our own supreme court, that in_ challenge in our own supreme court, that in fact _ challenge in our own supreme court, that in fact the bill is incompatible with our obligations under_ incompatible with our obligations under the european convention. both those _ under the european convention. both those things will undoubtedly happen. and the irony is that the government may have a credible policy _ government may have a credible policy by — government may have a credible policy by having this treaty with rwanda — policy by having this treaty with rwanda but by trying to short cut and force — rwanda but by trying to short cut and force the courts not to consider it, i and force the courts not to consider it. ithink— and force the courts not to consider it. lthink it— and force the courts not to consider it, i think it greatly undermines any credibility it has to make this policy— any credibility it has to make this policy work. and just picking up david's — policy work. and just picking up david's point, the policy wouldn't work_ david's point, the policy wouldn't work if_ david's point, the policy wouldn't work if they adopted the route that he is advocating.— he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with _ he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with it. - he is advocating. because rwanda wouldn't go along with it. rwanda | wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with _ wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it, - wouldn't go along with it. rwanda wouldn't go along with it, it i wouldn't go along with it, it would -et wouldn't go along with it, it would get through the house of lords who will undoubtedly reject it because they would be entitled to do it, because — they would be entitled to do it, because they would say that such a gross _ because they would say that such a gross violation of ordinary constitutional conventions —— it would — constitutional conventions —— it would not — constitutional conventions —— it would not get through the house of lords _ would not get through the house of lords foot— would not get through the house of lords foot of including ousting the course _ lords foot of including ousting the course of — lords foot of including ousting the course of administrative decisions. robert _ course of administrative decisions. robertjenrick will know course of administrative decisions. robert jenrick will know that. he ought to know that. he - robert jenrick will know that. he ought to know that. he will- robert jenrick will know that. he | ought to know that. he will know that so why _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't he _ ought to know that. he will know that so why hasn't he resigned? l ought to know that. he will knowj that so why hasn't he resigned? i have no idea why he has resigned. i assume _ have no idea why he has resigned. i assume because he wanted, as was clear— assume because he wanted, as was clear so— assume because he wanted, as was clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill— clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill as — clear so braverman wanted, to use this bill as an opportunity effectively to pull the uk out of the european convention. and of course _ the european convention. and of course that— the european convention. and of course that isn'tjust the european convention. and of course that isn't just about reputation, that's also about whether— reputation, that's also about whether we can stay in trade and cooperation agreement with the eu, it's about _ cooperation agreement with the eu, it's about the northern ireland good friday— it's about the northern ireland good friday belfast agreement, it's about our security and home affairs corporation with the eu and our participation in horizon, i think there _ participation in horizon, i think there is— participation in horizon, i think there is along this i could add to that _ there is along this i could add to that. , ., ., g ., that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the most _ that. dame diana johnson, the prime minister avoided the most dramatic l minister avoided the most dramatic option, which would have been withdrawing from the european convention on human rights, you must be pleased with that? the home affairs select — be pleased with that? the home affairs select committee - be pleased with that? the home affairs select committee has i be pleased with that? the home i affairs select committee has never looked _ affairs select committee has never looked at _ affairs select committee has never looked at that _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we _ affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we were - affairs select committee has never looked at that. what we were sentl affairs select committee has never. looked at that. what we were sent to the governrnent— looked at that. what we were sent to the government was _ looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this _ looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this policy - looked at that. what we were sent to the government was this policy theyl the government was this policy they came _ the government was this policy they carne up— the government was this policy they came up with. — the government was this policy they came up with, which _ the government was this policy they came up with, which was _ the government was this policy they came up with, which was very- came up with, which was very headline _ came up with, which was very headline grabbing, _ came up with, which was very headline grabbing, was - came up with, which was very headline grabbing, was neverj headline grabbing, was never properly— headline grabbing, was never properly evidence—based i headline grabbing, was never properly evidence—based and | headline grabbing, was never. properly evidence—based and it headline grabbing, was never- properly evidence—based and it was never— properly evidence—based and it was never properly— properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. _ properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and - properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and i- properly evidence—based and it was never properly costed. and i think i never properly costed. and i think what _ never properly costed. and i think what we _ never properly costed. and i think what we are — never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing _ never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing today - never properly costed. and i think what we are seeing today now, i never properly costed. and i think i what we are seeing today now, these announcements. _ what we are seeing today now, these announcements, this _ what we are seeing today now, these announcements, this legislation, i announcements, this legislation, emergency— announcements, this legislation, emergency legislation _ announcements, this legislation, emergency legislation going i announcements, this legislation, i emergency legislation going through the house, — emergency legislation going through the house, it— emergency legislation going through the house, it seems— emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to _ emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me - emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me this i emergency legislation going through the house, it seems to me this is i the house, it seems to me this is kind of— the house, it seems to me this is kind of a — the house, it seems to me this is kind of a kneejerk reaction - the house, it seems to me this is kind of a kneejerk reaction whenl kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually— kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what _ kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the _ kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the home - kind of a kneejerk reaction when actually what the home office i kind of a kneejerk reaction when i actually what the home office need to do is— actually what the home office need to do is look— actually what the home office need to do is look again _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at a _ actually what the home office need to do is look again at a range - to do is look again at a range of options — to do is look again at a range of options to deal— to do is look again at a range of options to deal with _ to do is look again at a range of options to deal with the - to do is look again at a range of options to deal with the small. to do is look again at a range of- options to deal with the small boats problem _ options to deal with the small boats problem because _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we are _ options to deal with the small boats problem because we are really i problem because we are really concerned _ problem because we are really concerned that _ problem because we are really concerned that there - problem because we are really c