6—10, but 10—12 in the south, so a little cooler. for the weekend, colder for oral, little cooler. for the weekend, colderfor oral, typical little cooler. for the weekend, colder for oral, typical spring weather. we get these milder and colder spells at times, and some showers will actually be wintry on the hills in the north and west. as you can see, the cold air pretty much across the whole country into saturday. lots of isobars in the chart. it will be windy, plenty of showers around on saturday, wintry on the hills. probably a better day on the hills. probably a better day on sunday, more sunshine around. that's it from me. back to you. thanks, stav. and that's bbc news at ten. newsnight is just getting under way on bbc two with victoria derbyshire. on bbc one, it's time tojoin our colleagues for the news where you are. goodnight.

and you will be prime minister after the may— and you will be prime minister after the may elections? _ yes. laughter. will he be laughing on may 3rd? rishi sunak has been meeting his backbenchers urging them to focus on attacking labour — subtext not him. and they liked what he had to say.

lowest inflation for almost two and a half years, but on his signature rwanda policy, opposition peers today put back in the changes that were stripped out by the commons on monday. nick will have the latest on when this could become law and we'll talk live to the conservatives and labour. also tonight, there's a furious row about prejudice and freedom of speech in scotland as new hate crime legislation comes in on april 1st. on one side, there'sjk rowling and elon musk, who argue it will criminalise free speech. on the other, first minister humza yousaf, who's said the law sends a "clear and strong message that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously". we'll hear the arguments for and against the new law. and later, data suggests nhs gender clinics in england are facing a ten—year backlog forfirst appointments.

what are the consequences for those who wait? in the morning of the 26th of may, a policeman came and knocked at our door and told us a body had been found and they had reason to believe that it was alice. hello. applause and cheering for the prime minster this evening as he arrived to meet his backbenchers before they head off for the easter holiday soon. he was said to be angry at the plotting against him by a small minority of his mps, and he's telling his party 2024 will prove to be the bounce back year. he was talking about the economy rather than his electoral chances. nick is here. how did it go for him? it was a re how did it go for him? it was a pretty cheery _ how did it go for him? it was a pretty cheery affair. _ how did it go for him? it was a pretty cheery affair. i - how did it go for him? it was a pretty cheery affair. i stood - pretty cheery affair. i stood outside the door to the committee room as the prime minister came in 45 minutes later, he came out. when he went in and came out, there was a lot of banging of desks and cheering. a good sign but you have

to say there have been previous tory leaders who have had that reception and not been around for much longer. but i do have to say, there was a genuinely positive vibe amongst conservative mps tonight. they are talking about how robust the prime minister was, talking about how robust the prime ministerwas, pleased talking about how robust the prime minister was, pleased to see him talking up very strongly, he talked about the 14 years of the conservative record in office. i understand the prime minister did express some anger with the plotting against him. he said it made him angry because it was designed to damage him but he said more importantly, it is ending up damaging all of you. there was a discordant note. sirjake berry complain directly to the prime minister that he had been defending the rwanda scheme and then found out that number 10 he alleged was briefing against him. the prime minister said it was being looked into. but aside from their strange atmosphere, i caught up with a loyalist mp afterwards and they said of his performance, it was good. of

course rishi sunak sa. then this oil are said to me, but he should have called the general election on the 2nd of may and then said, i don't really know how rishi sunak will keep going until the autumn. yes, you will probably survive but i am not sure how the government keeps going as a credible concern. i am not sure that saying inflation and interest rates are going down well cut it with voters. that interest rates are going down well cut it with voters.— cut it with voters. that was from one loyalist _ cut it with voters. that was from one loyalist. central _ cut it with voters. that was from one loyalist. central to - cut it with voters. that was from one loyalist. central to the - cut it with voters. that was from | one loyalist. centralto the prime one loyalist. central to the prime minister's fortunes and if he can sustain and tell a general election, the signature policy of deporting channel arrivals to rwanda. you may have heard him promise once or twice to stop the boats. what else has been said? we are working to the same timetable we have always been working to and that means spring. it is we have always been working to and that means spring.— that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government _ that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government to _ that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government to live _ that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government to live and - that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government to live and if - that means spring. it is a perfectly safe government to live and if you | safe government to live and if you don't _ safe government to live and if you don't oppose the government. if you want to get — don't oppose the government. if you want to get flights _ don't oppose the government. if you want to get flights off _ don't oppose the government. if you want to get flights off next _ don't oppose the government. if you want to get flights off next year, ideally _ want to get flights off next year, ideally in — want to get flights off next year, ideally in the _ want to get flights off next year, ideally in the spring. _ want to get flights off next year, ideally in the spring. the - want to get flights off next year, ideally in the spring.— ideally in the spring. the british --eole's ideally in the spring. the british

people's patients can _ ideally in the spring. the british people's patients can only - ideally in the spring. the british people's patients can only be i people's patients can only be stretched so thin. i people's patients can only be stretched so thin.— stretched so thin. i see two immigration _ stretched so thin. i see two immigration ministers, - stretched so thin. i see two immigration ministers, not| stretched so thin. i see two - immigration ministers, not one but two. ~ ., ., ., immigration ministers, not one but two. ., ., ., ., ., ., , two. we are going to operationalise this [an two. we are going to operationalise this plan and _ two. we are going to operationalise this plan and make _ two. we are going to operationalise this plan and make it _ two. we are going to operationalise this plan and make it work, - two. we are going to operationalise this plan and make it work, we - this plan and make it work, we simply— this plan and make it work, we simply cannot _ this plan and make it work, we simply cannot afford _ this plan and make it work, we simply cannot afford not - this plan and make it work, we simply cannot afford not to. i5| this plan and make it work, we simply cannot afford not to. is this government _ simply cannot afford not to. is this government falling _ simply cannot afford not to. is this government falling apart? - simply cannot afford not to. is this government falling apart? you - simply cannot afford not to. is this government falling apart? you arej government falling apart? you are guaranteeing _ government falling apart? you are guaranteeing there _ government falling apart? you are guaranteeing there will _ government falling apart? you are guaranteeing there will not - government falling apart? you are guaranteeing there will not be - guaranteeing there will not be planes to rwanda? the guaranteeing there will not be planes to rwanda? guaranteeing there will not be lanes to rwanda? . ., , planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been — planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been shown _ planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been shown to _ planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been shown to be _ planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been shown to be in _ planes to rwanda? the changes needed have not been shown to be in place - have not been shown to be in place now _ have not been shown to be in place now. ., ., ., ., ., now. you are guaranteeing that before the _ now. you are guaranteeing that before the next _ now. you are guaranteeing that before the next election? - now. you are guaranteeing that before the next election? yes, | now. you are guaranteeing that i before the next election? yes, we need to get _ before the next election? yes, we need to get through _ before the next election? yes, we need to get through the _ before the next election? yes, we need to get through the bill i before the next election? yes, we need to get through the bill first l need to get through the bill first and then— need to get through the bill first and then the _ need to get through the bill first and then the planes _ need to get through the bill first and then the planes will- need to get through the bill first and then the planes will take i need to get through the bill firstl and then the planes will take off. today, the house of lords inflicted further defeats on the government's flagship rwanda bill. on monday, the commons overturned ten changes made to it by peers earlier this month. and it seems peers have now begun to fire their return shots. what happened, nick? as you say, it was seven government defeats in the house of lords today and then the government making clear that we will not see this bill back in the house of commons until after the easter recess on the 15th of april. what that means is that this bill cannot enter the statute book until after easter, with the 18th of

april being talked about is the earliest possible date for that. that means that the earliest the flights can take off itsjune because it is assumed that you need about 6—8 weeks between it becoming law and the flights actually getting into the air. there is all a bit of a mystery about what went on today because it had been assumed that this bill would be done and dusted by tuesday, which is next tuesday, when the commons rises for the easter recess. so labour were planning two rounds of what is called parliamentary ping—pong, when the bill goes between the two chambers and then the idea was they would throw in the town next week to allow the bill to enter the statute book. government whips in both houses had put their mps and their peers on notice for voting in the commons tomorrow, voting in the lords next week and there was even chat of an informal deal between the two chief whips in the two houses, informal deal to get it on the statute book by next tuesday and

then, nothing happened. so statute book by next tuesday and then, nothing happened.- statute book by next tuesday and then, nothing happened. so what is auoin on? then, nothing happened. so what is going on? there — then, nothing happened. so what is going on? there are _ then, nothing happened. so what is going on? there are three - then, nothing happened. so what is going on? there are three possible| going on? there are three possible exolanations _ going on? there are three possible explanations among _ going on? there are three possible explanations among mps. - going on? there are three possible explanations among mps. the i going on? there are three possible explanations among mps. the firstj going on? there are three possible l explanations among mps. the first is explanations among mp5. the first is the government can now run a three—week campaign over the easter period, during the local election campaigns, saying that labour is blocking the flights because they don't want to stop the boats. there is an argument that the government needs a delay because it is not ready for the flights. that was an idea that was put to me by one former cabinet minister. or it is all down to parliamentary procedures, with things like timing around royal consent. iam procedures, with things like timing around royal consent. i am told sometimes these sorts of things can be a bit more complex and take a little longer than expected. {lilia little longer than expected. 0k, thank ou little longer than expected. 0k, thank you very _ little longer than expected. ok, thank you very much, nick. let's speak to labour mp neil coyle, who opposes the rwanda bill, and philip davies from the conservatives, who supports the government's policy. welcome, both of you. why has the government completely ignored the

issues some peers have raised? the eers, issues some peers have raised? tie: peers, labour issues some peers have raised? tte: peers, labour peers issues some peers have raised? tt9: peers, labour peers in issues some peers have raised? tt9 peers, labour peers in particular, trying to block the bill. wrecking amendments they are trying to put in the bill because they don't believe in stopping the boats or taking whatever measures are necessary in order to do that.— order to do that. let's look at one of them, order to do that. let's look at one of them. what _ order to do that. let's look at one of them, what would _ order to do that. let's look at one of them, what would be _ order to do that. let's look at one of them, what would be wrong i order to do that. let's look at one | of them, what would be wrong with the bill preventing people who fought alongside british armed forces from being deported to rwanda, which was one of their proposed changes? what is wrong with that? ~ , ., .., proposed changes? what is wrong with that? : , ., ,, proposed changes? what is wrong with that? ~ y., ~ ., '::' that? well, you can think of 101 exceptions to _ that? well, you can think of 101 exceptions to the _ that? well, you can think of 101 exceptions to the rule. - that? well, you can think of 101 exceptions to the rule. what i that? well, you can think of 101 exceptions to the rule. what is| exceptions to the rule. what is wron: exceptions to the rule. what is wrong with _ exceptions to the rule. what is wrong with that? _ exceptions to the rule. what is wrong with that? you - exceptions to the rule. what is wrong with that? you have i exceptions to the rule. what is wrong with that? you have to l exceptions to the rule. what is i wrong with that? you have to draw a line somewhere _ wrong with that? you have to draw a line somewhere with _ wrong with that? you have to draw a line somewhere with any _ wrong with that? you have to draw a line somewhere with any kind i wrong with that? you have to draw a line somewhere with any kind of i line somewhere with any kind of immigration. you can always say shall we allow everyone from hong kong to come to the country? thea;r kong to come to the country? they didn't say that. _ kong to come to the country? they didn't say that, did _ kong to come to the country? they didn't say that, did they? you i kong to come to the country? they didn't say that, did they? you havej didn't say that, did they? you have to draw a line _ didn't say that, did they? you have to draw a line somewhere. - didn't say that, did they? you have to draw a line somewhere. these l didn't say that, did they? you have l to draw a line somewhere. these are wrecking amendments to the bill to stop the bill from going through. the house of lords have played a very dangerous game here. theirjob, their constitutional job very dangerous game here. theirjob, their constitutionaljob is to ask their constitutionaljob is to ask the house of commons to think again.

to say, we think you should think again about this. they sent the amendments back. the house of commons thought again and sent them straight back again with big majorities each time and the house of lords now still insists on these amendments. labour peers still insisted on these amendments and playing a very dangerous game constitutionally. d0 playing a very dangerous game constitutionally.— constitutionally. do you accept that? it constitutionally. do you accept that? it is _ constitutionally. do you accept that? it is not _ constitutionally. do you accept that? it is not true _ constitutionally. do you accept that? it is not true to - constitutionally. do you accept that? it is not true to say i constitutionally. do you accept that? it is not true to say they| constitutionally. do you accept i that? it is not true to say they are wreckin: that? it is not true to say they are wrecking amendments. _ that? it is not true to say they are wrecking amendments. afghans l that? it is not true to say they are i wrecking amendments. afghans who fought— wrecking amendments. afghans who fought for— wrecking amendments. afghans who fought for us or for the us or worked — fought for us or for the us or worked with us to train the police, for example, and formed the largest group _ for example, and formed the largest group coming across the english channel. — group coming across the english channel, afghan nationals, the bill would _ channel, afghan nationals, the bill would have done more to protect those _ would have done more to protect those people who we owe a debt to. and for— those people who we owe a debt to. and for the — those people who we owe a debt to. and for the government to say that is a wrecking amendment is nonsense. what about— is a wrecking amendment is nonsense. what about rwanda as a country, what is wrong with it?— is wrong with it? look, philip, these are _ is wrong with it? look, philip, these are people _ is wrong with it? look, philip, these are people that - is wrong with it? look, philip, these are people that the i is wrong with it? look, philip, j these are people that the tory is wrong with it? look, philip, i these are people that the tory party of old _ these are people that the tory party of old would have been proud to have stood _ of old would have been proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with and

paid our— stood shoulder to shoulder with and paid our debt too. these are afghans who, for— paid our debt too. these are afghans who, for example, in my constituency, i have a man who has been _ constituency, i have a man who has been hit _ constituency, i have a man who has been hit more than a decade but his brother— been hit more than a decade but his brother was — been hit more than a decade but his brother was still living and working for us _ brother was still living and working for us in _ brother was still living and working for us in kabul but was injured. he has managed to get across the border~ — has managed to get across the border. the home office are telling him, border. the home office are telling him. you _ border. the home office are telling him, you have to go back and ask the taliban— him, you have to go back and ask the taliban for— him, you have to go back and ask the taliban for a — him, you have to go back and ask the taliban for a passport. so he is threatening come into this country by the _ threatening come into this country by the channel if he has to now he has recovered from his injuries. he doesn't _ has recovered from his injuries. he doesn't have — has recovered from his injuries. he doesn't have a legal means and this. people _ doesn't have a legal means and this. people are _ doesn't have a legal means and this. people are arriving illegally. they are not coming from afghanistan but from france. are not coming from afghanistan but from france-— from france. france is a perfectly safe country- _ from france. france is a perfectly safe country. one _ from france. france is a perfectly safe country. one of— from france. france is a perfectly safe country. one of the - from france. france is a perfectly safe country. one of the other i safe country. one of the other amendments... safe country. one of the other amendments. . ._ safe country. one of the other amendments... :, , :, . , . amendments... can you answer that ruestion, amendments... can you answer that question, france _ amendments... can you answer that question, france is _ amendments... can you answer that question, france is a _ amendments... can you answer that question, france is a safe _ amendments... can you answer that question, france is a safe country? | question, france is a safe country? the labour party would work closely with france — the labour party would work closely with france and work with euro poll so we _ with france and work with euro poll so we could — with france and work with euro poll so we could return people. philip is trying _ so we could return people. philip is trying to— so we could return people. philip is trying to distract from the fact that more people across the channel today— that more people across the channel today than— that more people across the channel today than this bill would actually send to— today than this bill would actually send to rwanda. the whole rwanda principle _ send to rwanda. the whole rwanda principle is — send to rwanda. the whole rwanda principle is absolute garbage and the costs —

principle is absolute garbage and the costs are astronomic. | principle is absolute garbage and the costs are astronomic. i will come to the — the costs are astronomic. i will come to the cost _ the costs are astronomic. i will come to the cost in _ the costs are astronomic. i will come to the cost in a _ the costs are astronomic. i will come to the cost in a moment. the costs are astronomic. i will. come to the cost in a moment. i the costs are astronomic. tin ll come to the cost in a moment. i want to ask you about cost as well. if the legislation works, you will be able to get around 200 people a year to rwanda the stop the backlog is over 128,000, so you will be are removing 0.16% a year, that is it. there is no cap on the numbers. the rwandan government make it clear there is no cap. they want to do it in stages but there is no cap on the overall... ~ ., , . a in stages but there is no cap on the overall... ~ .,, . a .,, overall... when robert jenrick was immigration _ overall... when robert jenrick was immigration mr— overall... when robert jenrick was immigration mr he _ overall... when robert jenrick was immigration mr he said _ overall... when robert jenrick was immigration mr he said rwanda i overall... when robert jenrick was l immigration mr he said rwanda had overall... when robert jenrick was i immigration mr he said rwanda had a capacity for around 200 arrivals in general 2022 they said they had a maximum capacity of around 200. thea;r maximum capacity of around 200. they have since said — maximum capacity of around 200. tt9 have since said there maximum capacity of around 200. tt91 have since said there is maximum capacity of around 200. tt91: have since said there is no cap on the number. there are about 135,000 refugees in rwanda. this cap does not... they want to do it in stages but there is no cap. the point is here that when people come over the channel, illegally, and deposit their documents in the channel on their documents in the channel on the way over so there is no way of

knowing which country they came from and you decide that these people have no reason to be in this country, the only thing you can do is to deport them to a third country for that you can't send them back to their country of origin because you don't know what it is. the question is for labour, if you don't believe in sending these people to a third country, the only possible thing is that they are prepared to keep them in the country, even if they have no basis for being here because they would have no mechanism to deport them to anywhere. let would have no mechanism to deport them to anywhere.— would have no mechanism to deport them to anywhere. let me talk about them to anywhere. let me talk about the cost. them to anywhere. let me talk about the cost- we — them to anywhere. let me talk about the cost. we heard _ them to anywhere. let me talk about the cost. we heard from _ them to anywhere. let me talk about the cost. we heard from the - the cost. we heard from the whitehall spending watchdog is costing taxpayers £46 million more through your policy of housing asylum seekers in barges and military sites rather than in hotels. pardon? it military sites rather than in hotels. pardon?— military sites rather than in hotels. pardon? , . ., , ., , hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz. hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz- you _ hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz. you seem _ hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz. you seem to _ hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz. you seem to be _ hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use the ritz. you seem to be really i hotels. pardon? it is cheaper to use| the ritz. you seem to be really good at wastin: the ritz. you seem to be really good at wasting taxpayers _ the ritz. you seem to be really good at wasting taxpayers money. - the ritz. you seem to be really good at wasting taxpayers money. that i the ritz. you seem to be really good at wasting taxpayers money. that is| at wasting taxpayers money. that is wh we at wasting taxpayers money. that is why we want — at wasting taxpayers money. that is why we want to _ at wasting taxpayers money. that is why we want to solve _ at wasting taxpayers money. that is why we want to solve the _ at wasting taxpayers money. that is why we want to solve the problem. | at wasting taxpayers money. that is i why we want to solve the problem. we accept there are far too many people coming into the country. the prime minister read out a lot of the things we have done, tackling the gangs and in terms of reducing the numbers. it is not enough. this is the only way we will solve it. yes,

we accept there is a huge amount of money being wasted, that is why we are desperate to solve this problem and this is the only way. trieiii and this is the only way. neil co le, and this is the only way. neil coyle, if— and this is the only way. neil coyle, if labour— and this is the only way. neil coyle, if labour win - and this is the only way. neil coyle, if labour win the i and this is the only way. neil coyle, if labour win the next general election, where would you how's people? it is general election, where would you hows people?— general election, where would you how's people? it is a waste of time and money — how's people? it is a waste of time and money to _ how's people? it is a waste of time and money to keep _ how's people? it is a waste of time and money to keep pursuing i how's people? it is a waste of time and money to keep pursuing this. i and money to keep pursuing this. where _ and money to keep pursuing this. where would you how's people who come on small boats if labour win the next election?— the next election? labour's policy is to not use _ the next election? labour's policy is to not use the _ the next election? labour's policy is to not use the hotels _ the next election? labour's policy is to not use the hotels by - the next election? labour's policy| is to not use the hotels by clearing the backlog. you is to not use the hotels by clearing the backlog-— is to not use the hotels by clearing the backlog. you would use barges and military _ the backlog. you would use barges and military sites? _ the backlog. you would use barges and military sites? the _ the backlog. you would use barges and military sites? the labour- the backlog. you would use bargesl and military sites? the labour party has said we — and military sites? the labour party has said we would _ and military sites? the labour party has said we would not. _ and military sites? the labour party has said we would not. for- and military sites? the labour party| has said we would not. for the same reason, _ has said we would not. for the same reason, the — has said we would not. for the same reason, the costs are ludicrous. the national— reason, the costs are ludicrous. the national audit office said the costs are ludicrous because that where you going _ are ludicrous because that where you going to _ are ludicrous because that where you going to how's people because you cannot— going to how's people because you cannot clear the backlog in a few days? _ cannot clear the backlog in a few days? it — cannot clear the backlog in a few days? it is — cannot clear the backlog in a few days? it is two things. and obviously we don't know what situation _ obviously we don't know what situation we are going to inherit if labour— situation we are going to inherit if labour win— situation we are going to inherit if labour win the next election. where would ou labour win the next election. where would you hows _ labour win the next election. where would you how's asylum _ labour win the next election. where would you how's asylum seekers? i would you how's asylum seekers? clearing the backlog allows for the new returns unit labour set up,

extra _ new returns unit labour set up, extra 1000 _ new returns unit labour set up, extra 1000 officers working to help move _ extra 1000 officers working to help move people back. new deals with france _ move people back. new deals with france. ., ., , , france. you cannot send people --eole france. you cannot send people people back _ france. you cannot send people people back to _ france. you cannot send people people back to afghanistan i france. you cannot send people people back to afghanistan or i people back to afghanistan or iran... t people back to afghanistan or iran... ., people back to afghanistan or iran... ~' ,., iran... i think the government oli iran... i think the government policy on _ iran... i think the government policy on afghanistan - iran... i think the government policy on afghanistan is i iran... i think the government| policy on afghanistan is frankly shameful. ourforces policy on afghanistan is frankly shameful. our forces are being let down _ shameful. our forces are being let down by— shameful. our forces are being let down by that specific country. you want down by that specific country. gm. want agreements with eu nations as you just said. want agreements with eu nations as you just said-— you 'ust said. there is another... can you just said. there is another... can i you just said. there is another... can i finish? _ you just said. there is another... can i finish? you _ you just said. there is another... can i finish? you want _ you just said. there is another... i can i finish? you want agreements with eu nations so you can send people back home, when it is a safe country, kind of like the government's arrangement with albania. how many people would you, with the uk be accepting and return? we don't know. it depends on the situation — we don't know. it depends on the situation. :, we don't know. it depends on the situation. ., ., ., ., ., ,, situation. you would have to take some back. _ situation. you would have to take some back. you _ situation. you would have to take some back, you accept _ situation. you would have to take some back, you accept that? i situation. you would have to take some back, you accept that? one thin that some back, you accept that? one thing that is _ some back, you accept that? one thing that is missed in this debate is the _ thing that is missed in this debate is the uk — thing that is missed in this debate is the uk should be an ambitious country— is the uk should be an ambitious country in — is the uk should be an ambitious country in how we try and stabilise other— country in how we try and stabilise other countries. sometimes using our armed _ other countries. sometimes using our armed forces and the government

abandon— armed forces and the government abandon afghanistan, which we talked about, _ abandon afghanistan, which we talked about, but— abandon afghanistan, which we talked about, but also about how we use our aid and _ about, but also about how we use our aid and humanitarian support. we should _ aid and humanitarian support. we should be — aid and humanitarian support. we should be trying to stop some people coming _ should be trying to stop some people coming altogether by intervening with other disasters. will coming altogether by intervening with other disasters.— with other disasters. will your oli is with other disasters. will your policy is stop _ with other disasters. will your policy is stop the _ with other disasters. will your policy is stop the boats? i with other disasters. will your policy is stop the boats? we l with other disasters. will your i policy is stop the boats? we would like to stop — policy is stop the boats? we would like to stop the _ policy is stop the boats? we would like to stop the boats. _ policy is stop the boats? we would like to stop the boats. that - policy is stop the boats? we would like to stop the boats. that was i policy is stop the boats? we would | like to stop the boats. that was not the question- _ like to stop the boats. that was not the question- i _ like to stop the boats. that was not the question. i won't _ like to stop the boats. that was not the question. i won't sit _ like to stop the boats. that was not the question. i won't sit here... i i the question. i won't sit here... i am 'ust the question. i won't sit here... i am just asking- _ the question. i won't sit here... i am just asking. stopping - the question. i won't sit here... i am just asking. stopping the i the question. i won't sit here... i i am just asking. stopping the boats am 'ust asking. stopping the boats is am just asking. stopping the boats is a juvenile _ am just asking. stopping the boats is a juvenile gimmick _ am just asking. stopping the boats is a juvenile gimmick of _ am just asking. stopping the boats is a juvenile gimmick of the - am just asking. stopping the boats is a juvenile gimmick of the policy | is a juvenile gimmick of the policy and we _ is a juvenile gimmick of the policy and we need to actually get back to the mature... we don't want people crossing. _ the mature... we don't want people crossing. of— the mature... we don't want people crossing, of course not. the aspiration _ crossing, of course not. the aspiration is there but it is the workable _ aspiration is there but it is the workable policies and some of that, we have _ workable policies and some of that, we have to — workable policies and some of that, we have to be grown up about this, is about— we have to be grown up about this, is about resettling people properly. the home — is about resettling people properly. the home office has proved time and a-ain the home office has proved time and again it _ the home office has proved time and again it is _ the home office has proved time and again it is totally incompetent and wasting _ again it is totally incompetent and wasting taxpayers money trying to do this some _ wasting taxpayers money trying to do this. some of it should be with councils— this. some of it should be with councils and local authorities who have _ councils and local authorities who have a _ councils and local authorities who have a better connection with local communities. have a better connection with local communities-— have a better connection with local communities. when will the flights take off? it — communities. when will the flights take off? it depends _ communities. when will the flights take off? it depends on _ communities. when will the flights take off? it depends on the - communities. when will the flights take off? it depends on the house| communities. when will the flights l take off? it depends on the house of lords, ou take off? it depends on the house of lords, you better— take off? it depends on the house of lords, you better as _

take off? it depends on the house of lords, you better as the _ take off? it depends on the house of lords, you better as the house i take off? it depends on the house of lords, you better as the house of. lords, you better as the house of lords. ~ , , �* lords, you better as the house of lords. 9 , , �* lords. why isn't the government brin . in . lords. why isn't the government bringing the _ lords. why isn't the government bringing the bill— lords. why isn't the government bringing the bill back _ lords. why isn't the government bringing the bill back next i lords. why isn't the government| bringing the bill back next week? lords. why isn't the government i bringing the bill back next week? it bringing the bill back next week? it doesn't make any difference because of royal assent. it would only get royal assent after easter anyway. that wouldn't make any difference, thatis that wouldn't make any difference, that is why the government are not rushing it through. by the way, it is good coming on newsnight because you learn something new everyday. i didn't know that we were all told we would have to be here tomorrow. i wasn't told that as a conservative mp. it is great what you learn when you appear on newsnight. that was news to me. me you appear on newsnight. that was news to me-— news to me. me ask you, is rishi sunak safe _ news to me. me ask you, is rishi sunak safe from _ news to me. me ask you, is rishi sunak safe from his _ news to me. me ask you, is rishi sunak safe from his own - news to me. me ask you, is rishi sunak safe from his own mps i news to me. me ask you, is rishil sunak safe from his own mps until may the 3rd at least? he sunak safe from his own mps until may the 3rd at least?— may the 3rd at least? he is safe until the general— may the 3rd at least? he is safe until the general election, i may the 3rd at least? he is safe until the general election, he i may the 3rd at least? he is safe l until the general election, he will ease us into the general election. of ease us into the general election. of course, there are a few malcontents who may be their ambitions were thwarted, maybe they have future ambitions, may be a different regime would have them in a more elevated position. i am different regime would have them in a more elevated position. iam more interested in the policies people are pursuing rather than the

opportunity for personal ambition. as far as i am concerned, the prime minister is doing a brilliantjob, given the situation he inherited and we are very lucky to have him. the country is very lucky to have him and the people in the parliamentary party who are not supporting him are so small in number, it has to be insignificant. but so small in number, it has to be insignificant.— so small in number, it has to be insignificant. but you did agitate auainst a insignificant. but you did agitate against a former— insignificant. but you did agitate against a former conservative i insignificant. but you did agitate i against a former conservative prime minister and leader? i against a former conservative prime minister and leader?— minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse, minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse. that _ minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse, that is _ minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse, that is my _ minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse, that is my whole - minister and leader? i did. i am not adverse, that is my whole point. i l adverse, that is my whole point. i am not somebody who will come along and be an absolute loyalist to everybody who is there, i will say what i think. i think the prime minister is doing a brilliantjob, he is safe. the vast majority of colleagues support him, as was seen at the 1922 committee today. he will lead us into the election. the number of people who are agitated is a very small number and they have been much better advised to turn their fire on the labour party, who are the real threat to the country, not rishi sunak. do are the real threat to the country, not rishi sunak.— are the real threat to the country, not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak _ not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak is _ not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak is a _ not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak is a loser? _ not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak is a loser? the - not rishi sunak. do you worry that rishi sunak is a loser? the reason| not rishi sunak. do you worry that |

rishi sunak is a loser? the reason i put it like that is it doesn't seem to matter what he tries, whether it is scrapping hs2 or telling tory party conference he is the change candidate or the tax cut in the budget, it doesn't change the dial, it would appear? it budget, it doesn't change the dial, it would appear?— budget, it doesn't change the dial, it would appear? it would help with all of our colleague _ it would appear? it would help with all of our colleague said _ it would appear? it would help with all of our colleague said to - it would appear? it would help with all of our colleague said to the i all of our colleague said to the country, these are the things the prime minister is doing. he is change the immigration laws to cut illegal immigration into the country. he scrapped hs2. he has pushed back the net zero insane timetable. all of these things we should go and tell the public what the prime minister has done and say, actually, the threat to the country comes from the labour party, who would reverse those policies. ok. a final one, andrea _ would reverse those policies. ok. a final one, andrea leadsom - would reverse those policies. ok. a final one, andrea leadsom said i final one, andrea leadsom said earlier that the cost of living crisis has ended. do you agree? it is easy, inflation shows the cost of living is easing but it is not over yet. living is easing but it is not over et. �* . :. living is easing but it is not over et. �* , ., , , living is easing but it is not over et. �* , . , , ., , yet. bills are still rising and my constituents _ yet. bills are still rising and my constituents are _ yet. bills are still rising and my constituents are so _ yet. bills are still rising and my constituents are so angry i yet. bills are still rising and my constituents are so angry at i yet. bills are still rising and my| constituents are so angry at this ludicrous — constituents are so angry at this ludicrous cost of rwanda when for the same —

ludicrous cost of rwanda when for the same price of not sending one person— the same price of not sending one person to — the same price of not sending one person to rwanda, that could fund 67 police _ person to rwanda, that could fund 67 police officers or 72 new nurses for a year _ police officers or 72 new nurses for a year to _ police officers or 72 new nurses for a year to cut — police officers or 72 new nurses for a year to cut the damage done by this incompetent lot.— a year to cut the damage done by this incompetent lot. thank you both of ou ve this incompetent lot. thank you both of you very much- — at the start of next month a new law comes in in scotland that has provoked a furious row about prejudice, offence and freedom of speech. it's called the hate crime and public order (scotland) act and it criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, trans identity, age or disability, not biological sex itself. the act creates a new crime of stirring up hatred against protected groups, punishable by up to seven years in prison. the protected characteristics are: age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity and variations in sex characteristics, otherwise known as intersexuality. stirring up racial hatred is already

a crime but the new law omits sex as a protected characteristic. the snp government says it is preparing a separate law to tackle misogyny and here is first minister humza yousaf defending the new law back when he was justice minister. to those who think they may accidentally somehow fall foul of the law in relation to elaine smith's point, because they believe sex is immutable, or state an adult man cannot become a female. or they campaign for the rights of palestinians as zander white mentioned to me yesterday. or those who prosthesise that same sex relationships are sinful. none of those people would fall foul of the stirring up of hatred offence for soley stating their belief — even if they did so in a robust manner. there is concern from those who believe saame sex spaces should stay single sex. likejk rowling, who say their views could be criminalised and that women would be left unprotected from this new hate crime law. responding to a suggestion

she would have to delete her x posts police scotland say they are not instructing officers to target actors, comedians or any other people or groups. however, explanatory notes attached to the act says that one can stir up hatred through, for example, social media, online streaming or public performance of a play, etc. critics of the legislation have ranged from some feminists to the catholic church. people like elon musk. from artists to lawyers. from april fools' day, we will see if their concerns come true. in a moment, we'll speak to the snp's fulton macgregor but first let's talk to former senior civil servant dr lucy hunter blackburn of edinburgh based policy research collective murray blackburn mackenzie, whose work includes campaigns on sex

based rights for women. thank you for talking to us. what is it that you fear be able to say or is a wide range of things are simply clear after the legislation. the attem -t clear after the legislation. the attempt to _ clear after the legislation. the attempt to get... _ clear after the legislation. the attempt to get... . _ clear after the legislation. the attempt to get... . examples. j clear after the legislation. the i attempt to get... . examples. sort of thins attempt to get... . examples. sort of things are — attempt to get... . examples. sort of things are worried _ attempt to get... . examples. sort of things are worried about, i attempt to get... . examples. sort of things are worried about, but i attempt to get... . examples. sort| of things are worried about, but the skins can't have a venus was the sort of phrase. can i say that? what if someone says trans women, men and people can't change sex. the fundamental points is based company

that people cannot change sex. the first prayers said it was safe, that is not what says. try to get projections for this kind of things, but it the justice minister. projections for this kind of things, but it thejustice minister. he said, for those who think they may accidentally fall foul of this law because they believe an adult man cannot become female by the campaign for the rights of palestinians, although they say same sex relations are simple, fall foul of the stirring up hatred offence force restating the leaves, even if they say so in a robust manner. is belief, which may be offensive to some, to stop bridging the criminal threshold. sat; some, to stop bridging the criminal threshold. ,,._ ., .,. some, to stop bridging the criminal threshold. ,., . .. ., threshold. say that the the face of the act of the _ threshold. say that the the face of the act of the act _ threshold. say that the the face of

the act of the act does _ threshold. say that the the face of the act of the act does not - threshold. say that the the face of the act of the act does not say i the act of the act does not say that. we tried to get statements like that into the face of the act, as it was england where sexual orientation was added since specific protections were added in, government right public lives in. it does not matter what he said on the floor in hollywood is irrelevant, it means nothing. we'rejoined now by fulton macgregor, an msp in the scottish national party and a member of holyrood's criminaljustice comittee. hello, thank you forjoining us. explained to her audience right across the country. this law is designed to combat?- across the country. this law is designed to combat? hate crime is a ma'or designed to combat? hate crime is a major problem _ designed to combat? hate crime is a major problem across _ designed to combat? hate crime is a major problem across scotland i designed to combat? hate crime is a major problem across scotland and l major problem across scotland and the country and it wreaks havoc individual, on communities and families. in essence is built as part of a range of measures to

tackle that. tt part of a range of measures to tackle that.— tackle that. if you see hunter blackburn — tackle that. if you see hunter blackburn held _ tackle that. if you see hunter blackburn held up— tackle that. if you see hunter blackburn held up a - tackle that. if you see hunter blackburn held up a placard l tackle that. if you see hunter- blackburn held up a placard saying have a venus, for if jake rowling tweeted trans women or men, could they be reported to police and standing as it is up to individuals. i was a member of the scottish parliament committee that took forward this legislation and there are robust safeguards in place to protect freedom of speech. freedom of speech is important to the scottish parliament, scottish democracy and as an msp. thank you sean. i democracy and as an msp. thank you sean- l have — democracy and as an msp. thank you sean. i have understood _ democracy and as an msp. thank you sean. i have understood you - sean. i have understood you correctly, somebody for up a placard

saying lesbians don't have a venus, could be reported to the place. you have said of his work take it any further. got no idea whether they will take any further or not. please scotland have said they will investigate hate crime. for the stock footage _ investigate hate crime. for the stock footage of _ investigate hate crime. for the stock footage of the _ investigate hate crime. for the stock footage of the 1st - investigate hate crime. for the stock footage of the 1st of i investigate hate crime. for the | stock footage of the 1st of april and could report his offences just now. what i am saying that the past, these are issues or statements, or whatever example to use, that should not be prosecuted. that is not the law. the point of the law is not freedom of speech. that is not the point of. freedom of speech. that is not the oint of. :. . freedom of speech. that is not the oint of. . , ., ,., , point of. that is not the point, but henderson. _ point of. that is not the point, but henderson, qc, _ point of. that is not the point, but henderson, qc, said _ point of. that is not the point, but henderson, qc, said the - point of. that is not the point, but henderson, qc, said the problem| point of. that is not the point, but i henderson, qc, said the problem of the legislation is the offence is in the legislation is the offence is in the eye of the beholder. for example, if you said to me after

april the 1st in scotland, victoria, you are be on tv. if i felt stirring up you are be on tv. if i felt stirring up hatred on the grounds of age, please, correct? we up hatred on the grounds of age, please, correct?— up hatred on the grounds of age, please, correct? we have already established _ please, correct? we have already established report _ please, correct? we have already established report that _ please, correct? we have already established report that to - please, correct? we have already established report that to the i established report that to the police anyway. but that is not the point of the law. it is not to capture the instances. i am confident will be implemented properly by the justice confident will be implemented properly by thejustice agencies properly by the justice agencies across scotland. i've had previously going quickly as well as i think the government does have a job to do to make sure that people assured works for them. make sure that people assured works forthem. i make sure that people assured works for them. i am make sure that people assured works forthem. iam in no make sure that people assured works for them. i am in no way suggesting we these concerns, absolutely not, we these concerns, absolutely not, we can't do that. if have concerns,

the concerns there and we need to address those and take them seriously the government have got work to do there. legislation voted for by the snp, by the labour party, the green party, the liberal democrats visited various cross—party support and it will be implemented properly and some of these concerns will hopefully prove to be unfounded.— these concerns will hopefully prove to be unfounded. could deliberately raivin to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some — to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some of— to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some of the _ to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some of the agenda - to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some of the agenda be i to be unfounded. could deliberately giving some of the agenda be a - giving some of the agenda be a crime? it giving some of the agenda be a crime? , , a, crime? it depends on the circumstances. _ crime? it depends on the circumstances. that - crime? it depends on the circumstances. that is i crime? it depends on the i circumstances. that is part crime? it depends on the - circumstances. that is part of the characteristics in there, but it depends on the circumstances. it depends on the circumstances. it depends on the circumstances. it depends on whether it is stirring up hatred. we can't talk about the full

context. , ., . ., , context. there is no cortex, these are examples. _ context. there is no cortex, these are examples, if— context. there is no cortex, these are examples, if you _ context. there is no cortex, these are examples, if you are - context. there is no cortex, these are examples, if you are bringing | are examples, if you are bringing this blog should be able to answer before our audience. thank you for your time. that you go back to doctor lucy hunter blackburn. ian schubak? no, not the least. the session, first proposed an explicit promise to us that we will be contacted involved can work out to the act was passed to try and sort things out and put things in place and that promise was broken, shamelessly broken. we kept writing, when are we going to be involved? eventually we were told we were not. so we know that they have concerns that they will talk to us, they had three years in which they slammed the door in herface and

made no effort whatsoever to engage with people with concerns and they are surprised that the law is on the brink of being brought in and the police force is extremely overstretched and they are surprised people are still worried. it is gobsmacking, actually. mister macgregor. — gobsmacking, actually. mister macgregor, would _ gobsmacking, actually. mister macgregor, would it _ gobsmacking, actually. mister macgregor, would it be - gobsmacking, actually. mister macgregor, would it be all - gobsmacking, actually. misterl macgregor, would it be all right gobsmacking, actually. mister- macgregor, would it be all right to come back to what the final word? it is possible that, compete for the first there could be multiple complaints to the police in scotland aboutjk rowling, for example. it is about jk rowling, for example. it is ossible about jk rowling, for example. it is possible those _ aboutjk rowling, for example. it 3 possible those complaints could be made. as i said earlier on, those complaints can be madejust. but the on the context of what you are saying, regarding various suites, i would not envisage that those should be taking further forward by the police. they don't capture the essence and spirit of the law that has been passed. but essence and spirit of the law that has been passed.—

has been passed. but it wouldn't necessarily _ has been passed. but it wouldn't necessarily stop _ has been passed. but it wouldn't necessarily stop for _ has been passed. but it wouldn't necessarily stop for example - has been passed. but it wouldn't . necessarily stop for example people making complaints to the authorities and the police have said, they have promised that allegations of hate be followed up. it promised that allegations of hate be followed u. ., , �* , .,, promised that allegations of hate be followed u. ., , �* , . followed up. it doesn't stop an individual _ followed up. it doesn't stop an individual contacted _ followed up. it doesn't stop an l individual contacted authorities, but i have faith it will be implemented properly in the spirit in which it is intended in achieving its aims of those which are to tackle hate crime across scotland, which i think everybody agrees with there is an issue. thank you both for speaking to us, thank you. data obtained by newsnight and analysed by the bbc has found that nhs gender clinics in england could be facing a ten—year backlog of first appointments. last year, coroners ruled in three

cases that waiting times to access gender care had contributed to the deaths by suicide of three patients in england. nhs england have confirmed to newsnight they will now begin a review into the standard of care at adult gender clinics in the coming weeks. the following investigation contains testimony some viewers may find distressing. michael cowan reports. staff shortages and long waiting lists — the nhs is under extreme pressure, with over six million of us waiting for treatment, and trans patients may be facing longer waits than most. when i was referred, the waiting list was two years. then the pandemic came along, that stretched to four years. it's now stretched to four and a half, maybe five years, and getting worse year by year. we asked every gender identity clinic in the uk how long someone would wait for a first appointment if referred today. the majority of clinics would only

give us data on how long patients currently being seen had waited. that figure varied across each nation, with wales having the shortest wait time, atjust iii months, while nhs data from november 2023 showed patients in england have waited, on average, seven years to be seen. further analysis of data by the bbc, based on clinics' current waiting lists and the amount of first appointments available last year, suggested, on average, it would take ten years to clear the current backlog of patients — provided there were no changes to service provisions or the size of waiting lists. those needing treatment say long waits are impacting on their physical and mental health. naomi, who wants to remain anonymous, is about to turn 60 and was referred to the leeds clinic four years ago. i realised that there was something going on with me and just started trying to figure it out, and discovered that i was trans, which was a shock but not a horrible shock at the time.

the first thing i realised i needed to do was be referred to the leeds gender identity clinic. and once you'd been referred to the clinic by your gp... yeah. ..was there any mental health support made available to you? no. and i needed it at that point. what does it mean when you could be faced with a wait of up to a decade just to be seen for a first appointment? for people my age, it means that... the prospect of never transitioning, you know? sort of been given a... ..it�*ll never happen diagnosis. we know that poor mental health outcomes for trans people on waiting lists are very common. what did that look like for you? half a bottle of spirits a night, plus some beers. on very, very bad days, a whole bottle of spirits. and i was quite frightened. the worst was when i tried to repress who i was and i was... ..planning suicide, not just thinking about it.

many patients facing waits like naomi are unable to access hormone treatment from their gp and will end up seeking private care. leeds and york partnership nhs foundation trust, where naomi was referred, say they're constantly trying to improve patients' experience. this includes offering support from gender outreach workers, improving the efficiency of follow—up appointments, and enabling gps to play a greater role in care. so why are waiting lists so long? dr mike shaw is the lead clinician at a gender clinic in the north of england. he's also the surgical lead for the british medical association. he says a shortage of skilled staff, growing waiting lists and a lack of funding are partially to blame. there are definitely issues in the treatment pathway, as to how an individual progresses through a certain treatment. not all of our patients will want gender affirming surgery, but enough of them do that accessing

that surgery, if that's delayed, that holds more patients within our...within our service. we need to think about training of staff, so having that on the curriculum, having a pathway that moves people from that interest and awareness into thinking about becoming gender clinicians. do you think the department of health and social care and nhs england have a clear plan to deal with these waiting lists? i don't think it's in a clear, coherent, joined up form. i think there are elements of planning, so i'd hope to see that being brought together. so, no is the the short answer, but i think there are the elements that could be brought together. it's 6:00 on thursday, the 26th of may. good morning. this is today, with nick robertson

and mishal husain. on the morning of the 26th of may, a policeman came and knocked at our door and told us that a body had been found and they had reason to believe that it was alice. it's so difficult to sum up alice in just a few words, but she was just a treasure. she was just a lovely person, and everybody who knew her adored her. alice was 20—years—old when she was found dead in brighton. she'd been on the waiting list for the tavistock adult clinic in london for over three years at the time of her death. alice was about 17 and a half when she was referred. yes. so she was put straight onto the adult waiting list because she would have been over 18 by the time an appointment was available. what was her mental health like at that point? her mental health fluctuated. so every time she felt hope that she was going to get the treatment that she needed, her mental health improved and every

time she felt thwarted, her mental health would decline. just talk to me about the events of the 26th of may. on that morning, the 26th of may, it all became too much. it kind of felt like something that i was sort of expecting. even though alice have been well for quite a while. because... ..her future did seem very bleak. i think a lot of the time, she put on a brave face. you know, she tried her very hardest to live. the clinic where alice was referred to as the tavistock adult clinic. they are currently seeing patients from december 2018. alice wasn't referred until the summer of 2019, which means that if she were alive today, she still would not have received a first appointment.

what does that tell you about access to gender care in this country? what it tells me is that there is no care for trans people. if you can just imagine what that would be like for any medical condition that you might have — whether you need your heart surgery or your asthma medication or your diabetes drugs and being told, well, you can't have them for years. i mean, it's a death sentence. literally. it's impossible to put a number on how many patients have taken their life while on waiting lists. but we know in 2023, coroners ruled in three cases, including alice's, that waiting times to access gender care had directly contributed to the death of a patient and issued prevention of future deaths reports. the tavistock and portman nhs foundation trust, where alice was referred, said...