pace as Westminster winds down for the weekend. Time for reflection
next steps.
Dozens of MPs call for Lindsay Hoyle to resign, as Sir Keir Starmer
denies threatening the Speaker, and the humanitarian
situation in Gaza worsens.
The Speaker said MPs' safety from protesters angry
about the Gaza War was the reason for his controversial decision.
And he apologised again.
If true, what does it say about our democracy?
We speak to the former Attorney General Sir Geoffrey Cox,
and veteran Labour MP,
Barry Sheerman.
And from Rafah, we'll hear from the Red Cross
on conditions there.
And we're joined in the studio by the British-Israeli woman whose
father is still being held hostage somewhere in the Gaza strip.
Also tonight...
Did West Yorkshire Police miss opportunities to prevent
the killing of this woman, and others?
I said, "Tell me she's OK."
"I can't do that."
And then they said the words that no parent ever wants to hear,
and should have to hear.
"She didn't survive her injuries."
A full investigation of that coming up.
And...
Live from the Moon.
In the next hour, real pictures of the first
commercial landing ever.
The first American landing for over a half a century, we hope.
Good evening.
The chaos in Gaza continues to cost lives and threaten
a humanitarian catastrophe, especially with hudreds of thousands
of displaced Palestinians close to the Egyptian border waiting
for a threatened offensive from the Israeli Army.
The chaos in Parliament continues to reverberate,
with questions continuing to mount tonight for the Speaker,
Lindsay Hoyle.
Last night, the Commons passed the Labour ammendment calling
for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and warning
against the offensive in Rafah.
It also called for the release of Israeli hostages
being held by Hamas.
But the route to that resolution has raised very serious questions
of parliamentary propriety, significant breaks with precedent,
pressure on the Speaker from the Labour Party,
and the safety of MPs, amid heightened tensions in the UK
surrounding the Gaza War.
Our political editor Nick Watt, who broke many of the stories
on this, examines the fallout.
The guardian of ancient traditions in trouble,
after challenging those traditions.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle facing a campaign to oust him,
after claims that he favoured the Labour Party.
I apologise, and I apologise to the House.
I made a mistake.
We do make mistakes.
I own up to mine.
Contrition from a Speaker who said he was trying
to protect MPs' security.
Labour MPs had indicated they would face fewer
threats if they could vote for the New Labour position on Gaza,
an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.
Mixed views today about the future of the Speaker.
Mr Speaker is a decent man, as the leader said.
He is not the villain here.
Stephen Flynn, leader of the SNP.
Mr Speaker, as I have expressed to you privately,
prior to proceedings here today, we do not on these benches therefore
believe that you can continue in your role as Speaker.
We do not have confidence in your ability to do so.
Why have you lost confidence in the Speaker?
So, yesterday was meant to be about the people of Palestine
and the appalling collective punishment of the Palestinian people
in Gaza, and what happened was the House of Commons descended
into farce because of a decision made by the Speaker of the House
of Commons to turn the SNP Opposition Day into
a Labour Opposition Day.
That decision by Lindsay Hoyle was a stitch-up, it followed
a private discussion between Sir Keir Starmer
and Sir Lindsay Hoyle in a back room, in Westminster.
It's not good enough.
The Speaker has lost my confidence and that of my colleagues.
He's going to have to go.
Support from a Tory veteran.
I think the Speaker will be all right.
I hope he will be all right.
He deserves be all right.
He deserves to be all right.
And I just hope that over the weekend, people
reflect on the fact that, yes, he made a mistake,
but he did make a mistake through trying to act for the best
of good reasons.
And so, I think a little bit of compassion and understanding
and forgiveness wouldn't go a miss this Thursday evening.
The Speaker's position is difficult, though not yet precarious.
There are a growing number of Conservative and SNP MPs saying
they no longer have confidence in him, and I spoke to one member
of the Cabinet who said to me, "I hope Lindsay Hoyle goes away
for the weekend, has a long think and then steps down."
But the Speaker does have his backers.
But in all of this, Lindsay Hoyle has looked absolutely devastated.
He genuinely believes he acted in the interests
of Parliament and the interests of protecting MPs' security.
But even that has courted controversy.
We should never let extremists intimidate us into changing the way
in which Parliament works.
But Sir Charles Walker believes the Speaker was right.
I don't blame the Speaker for being concerned about it.
He's obsessed with the safety of Members of Parliament.
Since October the 7th, many Members of Parliament in this
place, on all sides of the house,
of all faiths, Jewish,
Christian, Muslim, have been put under huge pressure by sections
of their constituencies.
A slowing of the pace, as Westminster winds
down for the weekend.
Time for reflection about the next steps.
Joining me now is the former Attorney General Sir Geoffrey Cox,
and Labour MP Barry Sheerman.
Let's go to first, Sir Geoffrey. You are very much against what the
Speaker has done here, why? Well, he has made it clear he committed a
very grave error of judgment, I think that is commendable. I with
Charles Walker that Lindsay is a compassionate, humane man, put into
an impossible position by people who came to him. To say that the
procedures of Parliament should be fundamentally changed at the expense
of another party in order to protect people from intimidation. Now, my
view is that the House of Commons and the United Kingdom simply cannot
be seen to be altering its procedures because of external
threats. And those who came to persuade him of that committed, if
anything, a far worse error of judgment than Lindsay did in
acceding to it. Lindsay is concerned about Members of Parliament. Those
who came to him were concerned about party-political advantage and they
persuaded him that such was the intimidation that in order to avoid
it, a Labour amendment which should be taken first and was taken first
as a result of that decision should be entertained. Now, that is a week,
direct, abject surrender to tyranny and intolerance -- a week and
direct. And of the House of Commons are seen to do that, what message
does it send throughout the world to the enemies of this country, Putin,
to others who are looking on, about the resolve and determination of our
democracy to withstand such pressures? Do I detect you are a
little sceptical about the reality of this argument about the safety of
MPs, that it was the perception that you think won the date when the
Labour Party was talking to the Speaker? I have no doubt that the
Speaker felt it to be authentic and genuine. But we can't be seen to
kowtow to those threats. The moment we do that, we put our entire
jeopardy at risk and we send a message to people like Putin in this
world that we are not resolved to defend democracy and freedom. If
threats from people in the street to Members of Parliament can force us
to alter our procedures at the cost of the mockery that was yesterday,
what will it say to people like Putin if we are expected to defend
sometimes with our lives the values we stand for? And I think that is
the fundamental problem. When the Leader of the Opposition went to see
Lindsay Hoyle to persuade him that he should capitulate to that
intimidation, in my view, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated quite
plainly that he did not understand fundamental principles of defence of
democracy. I think it is a grave error of judgment not so much by the
Speaker, but by those who put him in that position. It was a
constitutional innovation, one might say. You are not averse to
constitutional innovation yourself. Famously as Attorney General, you
legally -- illegally closed down Parliament. This would seem to rank
more lowly than closing down Parliament. I don't accept the
premise, we will discuss that another time as to whether or not
prorogation was or was not what you call an illegal closure of
Parliament. It was certainly held to be unlawful by the Supreme Court.
But the fact of the matter is that had nothing to do with external
threats on the independence of Parliament. That was an internal
affair within Parliament. This is responding and being seen to respond
to intimidate tree, violent tactics on the streets of our country
against Members of Parliament. -- intimidate tree. We simply cannot be
seen to be altering our course of conduct, let alone as we did
yesterday. Is it not a weak Speaker that would succumb to that argument?
Yes, I'm afraid he was weak yesterday. He is modified, he's a
decent man, I am not calling for him to go. I think he can learn from
this -- he is mortified. But I think he will have to work very hard to
restore the confidence of Parliament. But Lindsay has been a
good Speaker by and large and I certainly don't want to see him go.
I think the people who need to be reflective of the people who fought
entirely party-political advantage persuaded Lindsay that intimidation
should be capitulated to. That was wrong. There is another
constitutional innovation here, which you now have the House of
Commons passing is slightly different foreign policy to the
actual government. That seems a difficult situation for your
government. Well, these motions as you know are not binding. This one
was extraordinary come in the sense that it was called after the seven
o'clock deadline. Many people didn't even know there was a division
called. I don't think that is going to affect the foreign policy of the
United Kingdom. I think what we do need to reflect on is whether or not
we should be bending the need -- bending the knee to this kind of
intimidation on our streets and I think it is a very bad sign that the
Leader of the Opposition is willing to go and persuade the Speaker of
the House of Commons that we should. Let's bring in Labour MP Barry
Sheerman. A difficult moment for your friend a Speaker, dozens of MPs
are now against him. How do you defend him? -- your friend the
Speaker. I believe he is the best Speaker, I have been in Parliament
for over 40 years. I have never seen a better Speaker in terms of being
impartial, being fair, being kind and really having Parliament at his
heart. And I really do admire Lindsay. And I was surprised, we
don't often see Sir Geoffrey in Parliament, but he obviously has
very strong opinions. I also remember his role with Boris Johnson
and quite honestly, I am astounded at his view. Quite honestly, if I
was going to put a vote of no confidence down on Monday, it would
be a vote of no confidence in penny Mordaunt. Because penny Mordaunt
inflamed the entire situation when we had this debate. It is like a
tinderbox in the House of Commons at the moment and the SNP know they
will be wiped out at the next election. Half of the Conservatives
are going to go. And they are looking for a diversion. And I think
the other night, I think last
the other night, I think last night was, penny Mordaunt was at the heart
of it. It was in keeping with Parliamentary procedure and your
leader put immense amounts of pressure on Speaker Lindsay Hoyle we
know that. He turned up at his office. How dare you repeat
something you know not to be true? It is not true. There was no
pressure from my leader Keir Starmer at all. The case was made as it is
always made, what is the right balance in terms of a debate where
all three parties wanted to amend the bill? And I thought it was very
sensible of the Speaker to say, we are going to take all three. If it
had not been for Penny Mordaunt, we could all have voted on our
particular amendments. Keir Starmer acknowledged urging the Speaker to
change the procedure today. He didn't, I'm sorry. He did, he was in
the room. I am sorry, you are wrong and you have no evidence for that.
There is always a conversation between the usual channels, the
whips, the leaders of parties on party business. And that is not,
what you have just said is not the truth. What irritates me is you
listen in great silence and reverence to the last Speaker, but
when I try to make the case that it was Penny Mordaunt of the
Conservatives that actually planned this brought a curse they are in
such a terrible state that they had to get a diversion and that
diversion was carefully planned, it was not by any accident -- that
planned this uproar because they are in. The Speaker has been an
unwitting victim of this plot. So the safety issues of MPs mentioned
by the Speaker, you see that as a real issue and if it is a real
issue, what does it say about the functioning of our democracy?
I think it is I'm a Member of Parliament that was threatened by
someone who obviously was mentally ill, coming down to Parliament and
to sort me out and kill me. He was arrested at Kings Cross and put into
a mental health care, came out and I was informed that he knew where I
lived and that he was back in London. Now, I'm afraid in terms of
in social media we are all the time getting this sort of threat. From
all sorts of people. People who focus on one. My next door neighbour
was killed by a... A stray man who had been following her on social
media. Jo Cox. She is my neighbour in terms of Parliamentary
constituencies. So I know this well. It is not from one source. There are
a lot of people out there that think it is all right to threaten Members
of Parliament on social media. We don't know which are the serious
ones and which are not serious. I have to say, I don't know anyone
better than Lindsay Hoyle, who has been actively supporting people like
me, who was absolutely for months worried about even walking near a
train line or keeping away from the edge of the platform and trying
different way tos to go. Lindsay Hoyle stepped in and cared about any
Member of Parliament from any source. We must leave that there.
Thank you for joining us.
Joe, more grim news from agencies on the ground in Gaza,
but some quiet progress, perhaps, on hostage negotiations?
Glimmers. Israeli media are reporting that the war cabinet are
saying peace negotiators can take part in the so far stalled talks.
They're trying to avoid a ground offensive in Rafah. Because you have
a million and a half Palestinians in one city and you have seen aerial
bombardment. I was speaking to a member of the the international Red
Cross. He said if there is a ground invasion it will be devastating.
If there were to be an intensification of
the hostilities within Rafah specifically, there aren't
really words, I think, to describe how devastating that
would be from a humanitarian perspective for civilians living
here who, simply put, don't really have
anywhere left to go.
I think that the death toll, which is already very high,
risks becoming unimaginably greater.
The death toll of course, he is talking about Palestinians. But we
must remember there are 134 Israeli hostages taken on October 7th, still
thought to be in Rafah. And their lives would also be in danger.
Thanks for bringing us up-to-date.
Sharone Lifschitz is a British Israeli,
whose parents were kidnapped and taken hostage by
Hamas on 7th October.
Her mother Yocheved was released after around two weeks.
Her father, Oded, is still being held.
Sharone, thank you for joining us again.
What is the latest? I guess you haven't heard anything from your
father or his situation? Not for, we know he was alive when he arrived.
But they have no news for the last 120 days. And your mother, how is
she recovering from her ordeal. You know, it is not a straight line. You
come and you have a lot of energy, as time goes by, it becomes more
complicated, it becomes harder, it becomes... The hope diminishes.
Using that word hope, what is your hope for the situation as you see it
now? My hope is that, as Joe just said, that the Israeli negotiators
will go and reach a deal and that the deal will entail the release of
all the hostages and that would make the best way to stop this offensive.
Obviously, Hamas can release the hostages without a deal. If you
don't want Israel to go to Rafah, it is probably the best way to do it.
Release the hostages and the incentive to go to Gaza diminishes.
You have long backed the idea of a ceasefire, is that message getting
through to the parties? Which party? I mean, I suppose it is both sides
that need too come together? Yes, I think the ceasefire, there is a lot
of pressure on Israel to reach a ceasefire and I can understand it,
because the situation in Gaza and in Rafah is horrendous. At the same
time, Israel must be able to protect its citizens, Hamas attacked our
community in the most horrendous way. And Israel will need
reassurance of some security. Again, Israel has a huge... It owes a huge
debt to its citizens that are being kept hostage and it must return
them. That is the way it reaches security. Your mother on her
release, she came face to face with the Hamas leader in Gaza. Does she
still believe she saws the eyes of somebody who a deal could be done?
It has been confirmed by other hostages that came back in the first
deal that it was sin war. Does she still feel peace can be achieved? My
mother believed that we should aim for peace. That we should protect
ourself, but we will never be a fully protected without a diplomatic
long-term agreement. Your family is from more a liberal kind of... Side
of Israeli politics. That is fair. That is not, that is not the
majority opinion in Israel, or is it shifting in terms of public opinion
as regards the war, or as the Binyamin Netanyahu Government? I
think there is a majority in Israel that wishes to live and to reach
long-term agreements that support the absence of war at least for both
side social security. And in prooef -- for both sides. And in previous
conflicts the Israeli public pushed for a ceasefire. I think in many
respects we are in the majority. I think both us and the Palestinians
are in need of leaders that actually tell us the truth. That takes the us
down from big trees and it is all to win or all to lose, into an
existence that supports life on both sides. Thank you very much. Thank
you very much.
A BBC Newsnight investigation has found that in at least nine cases
of domestic homicide, West Yorkshire Police knew of nine
women who had fears for their safety between 2019 and 2023.
In two of the killings - of Bethany Fields and Fawziyah Javed
- the programme has learned that the police had not conducted
proper risk assessments for these women when they had
reported domestic abuse.
Police adviser and homicide expert Professor Jane Monckton Smith said
she believed that there were missed opportunities and that the deaths
of Bethany and Fawziyah could have been prevented.
Yasminara Khan has this exclusive investigation.
Huddersfield, September 2019.
A 21-year-old university student has been violently stabbed multiple
times in broad daylight.
I noticed two missed calls from Bethany's father.
I knew instantly there was something amiss, so I phoned him
up straight away.
My first words were, "Is Bethany OK?"
He said, "I can't tell you that".
I asked him where he was.
He told me, down at Elland Road Police Station.
We got inside this this room.
And I looked and I saw Bethany's father absolutely in bits.
Totally distraught.
And I kept saying to this guy, "Just tell me she's OK".
And then he said the words that no parent
ever wants to hear and should have to hear.
"She didn't survive her injuries."
And straightaway I said, "Is that Paul Crowther?"
And he nodded and I said, "She came to you for help."
And they just put their heads down.
I died - in that moment I died.
The killer, Paul Crowther, Bethany's former
boyfriend, was arrested in less than an hour
after a short car chase.
Crowther was well known to the police.
Over the previous seven years, he had been arrested nine times
under the Mental Health Act, but was never sectioned,
despite being the named suspect in domestic incidents with two
different previous partners and had been served
with a restraining order four years previously.
A bit late night cycle practice!
His victim, Bethany Fields, and three other people had made
complaints about his threats to harm or kill others in the four weeks
before she was killed.
BBC Newsnight is aware that Bethany was at least one of nine women
who were killed by a partner, ex-partner, or a relative
after they or a third party went to West Yorkshire Police
regarding the perpetrator between 2019 and 2023.
And in some of the cases, the abuser was known to the police.
Experts say that the police, amongst other things, didn't undertake
risk assessments properly.
And families have told us that had the police responded
appropriately, these women might still be alive today.
In the case of the killing of Bethany Fields, the police
referred themselves to the Independent Office
for Police Conduct, who found a number of
failings, including staff shortages.
A failure to properly use police intelligence
to join the dots.
A failure to recognise that a serious crime of stalking
and or coercive control had been potentially committed,
which could have led to an arrest.
And a failure to properly complete a risk assessment, which would have
categorised Bethany as high risk.
The police watchdog inquiry also found that the officer
who had been left to look after the case
was a probationary officer, who had only been working
without direct supervision for a period of two weeks.
It needed a senior officer.
But my daughter put her trust, her life,
in their hands.
As far as I'm concerned, they failed my daughter.
West Yorkshire Police failed my daughter.
Professor Jane Monckton Smith is a forensics expert
who has researched and written extensively on interpersonal
violence and has advised a number of police forces,
including West Yorkshire.
People don't always make death threats to each other.
That's not a normal part of a relationship.
We know that in risk assessment, all of the research is telling us
that somebody starts talking about death in response
to a separation or a breakup, that is potentially
homicidal ideation.
You need to use that information as well to inform
your risk assessment.
And if they're not doing that, then that's a real problem
with the training.
If the risk assessment process itself isn't effective,
it could be much worse than a waste of time.
It could actually put that person in more danger.
Bethany's family are not alone in saying West Yorkshire Police
let their daughter down.
Last year, Newsnight spoke with Yasmin Javid, whose daughter
Fawziyah was murdered on a trip to Edinburgh when her partner
pushed her off a cliff on Arhtur's Seat, killing
her and her unborn child.
He was convicted of her murder and later tried to appeal
his sentence, which was rejected.
Fawziyah, like Bethany, had reported domestic
abuse to West Yorkshire Police - in her case twice, once
in April 2021 and six days before she was killed in September.
The first time around that the police came to see Fawziyah,
they told Fawziyah that she was medium risk.
And then shortly after that, they reassessed her and regraded
it to high risk.
And that was information that was never communicated to Fawziyah
or myself, which obviously would have made a big difference
because Fawziyah went back thinking, I'll be fine.
The second time round, the police officer that came to take
a statement from Fawziyah, she never communicated to Fawziyah
that now that she was going to leave the abuser, that she was at high
risk and also the fact that she was pregnant,
she was at high risk.
Had all this information being communicated to Fawziyah.
there is no way that Fawziyah would have gone
on that trip to Edinburgh.
She was sensible.
She was sensible, and she would have taken that on board.
She would never have put her life and her baby's life at risk.
How does this all make you feel?
Really angry, really upset - Fawziyah's death could
have been prevented.
I've lost my only child and her baby in horrific circumstances.
That's something you'll never get over.
Today, Fawziyah's baby would have been two years old.
An innocent life.
He never got to live.
West Yorkshire Police told BBC Newsnight:
"The circumstances prior
to the murder of Fawziyah Javid, including the reports of domestic
abuse that she made to West Yorkshire Police, are the subject
of an ongoing domestic homicide review."
I think there were opportunities to prevent the deaths of Fawziyah
and Bethany, and it wasn't necessarily simply
through the safeguarding of those two women,
but the management of those two men.
Karma Nirvana, a charity based in West Yorkshire that deals
with honour-based abuse, has taken part in three domestic homicide
reviews, including the current inquiry into Fawziyah Javid.
We see a repeat of key recommendations coming up time
and time again of things that we need to do, which by the time
you're in your third domestic homicide review, you're questioning,
why is this still coming up as a recommendation?
West Yorkshire Police told this programme:
"West Yorkshire Police Safeguarding Governance have worked
closely with Karma Nirvana over the last two years.
The force has also been working with Professor Jane Monckton Smith
in delivering conference and training courses around the eight
stages of domestic homicide."
West Yorkshire Domestic Abuse Policy identifies threats to kill,
a previous history of domestic abuse,
and a history of mental health and suicide as warning
markers which should result in a higher risk assessment.
Bethany was assessed as being at medium risk.
Just over two weeks before she was killed,
Bethany contacted police again about Paul Crowther,
who had been reported missing.
In a telephone call recorded and handed to the police
watchdog, the IOPC, she said:
"In all honesty, he should have been sectioned a long
time ago now.
In the last few months, the amount of times I've
spoken to the police when he has tried killing himself,
the amount of death threats he's made."
West Yorkshire Police told BBC Newsnight:
"As a result of both the domestic homicide review
and the IOPC investigation conducted following Bethany's murder,
West Yorkshire Police has accepted and implemented all recommendations
raised through these reports."
When Bethany's killer finally face justice,
he was given a manslaughter conviction for diminished
responsibility, and the judge ordered him to be detained
in hospital as part of his minimum sentence of 12 years.
No way should it have ever been manslaughter.
It was premeditated murder.
He's evil - pure evil.
Wicked.
A master manipulator and a very, very, very dangerous man,
who should never, ever be released.
Never.
West Yorkshire Police, in their statement, told
this programme:
"Our sympathies go out to the families
of Bethany Fields and Fawziyah Javid for the devastating and tragic
losses they have suffered.
During summer 2023, the force trained 3,250 frontline
officers and staff in the domestic abuse matters training."
The police watchdog concluded that, despite a catalogue of errors
and oversights, it was impossible to say whether, in Bethany's case,
the tragic outcome could have been avoided.
But the families of the victims in West Yorkshire are still asking,
why were key warning signs overlooked,
and why couldn't the police act?
Powerful report.
Let's get more from Jess Phillips - Labour MP for Birmingham, Yardley -
who sits on the committee for the Criminal Justice Bill.
Thanks for joining us again. And we are here again talking about the
same issue, but on this occasion, it is pretty clear there were warnings
from the eventual victim of the killing themselves. Are you
surprised in any way? I am not at all surprised to hear that review
after review, whether it is by the IOPC or domestic homicide reviews
that make the same recommendations over and over and over again, every
time there is one of these killings, we will say there are failings. I
have dealt with hundreds of cases of domestic homicide over my 20 years
working in this field and the truth is at least 50% of them could have
been averted. And had for example in the case of Fawziyah, and I have
worked with Fawziyah's family, if Fawziyah had come to me and said she
was pregnant, she was considering leaving, the first thing I would
have said to her because I am a trained person, I would have said,
you realise your dress you are at massive risk? Let's put something in
place because these two things mean you are in danger. Why was that not
said to her? And you heard the response from West Yorkshire Police
that they put in place training for thousands of officers, will that
make a difference as far as you can see? I think it is good for people
to have training. At 20 years ago, we said police should be trained on
this and in 20 years' time, I will say the exact same thing. I'm afraid
to say it is simply not enough. Police forces across our country do
not prioritise violence against women and girls, domestic violence
that often leads to domestic homicide anywhere near as much as
they should. We need to have specialist women safety units as was
recommended at the Metropolitan Police by the Louise KC review a
year ago. They need to be focused and properly resourced and make sure
that the people who work on this are not Rookies just starting out, but
have the proper amount of detectives, that have people who are
not police officers, who are expert in this field working alongside them
in their stations to make those connections. And until that is the
case, I guarantee you I will be on here again next year saying the
exact same thing about -- about the next nine cases. There have been
lots of efforts at Legislation on this from the Government. So it is
not a lot of legislation here, is it resource income attitudes generally?
Actually, attitudes have improved massively and there is reason to be
cheerful the public have had enough of the lack of attention on women's
safety and mothers and daughters and sisters are not safe for themselves,
in fact. But the truth is there is plenty of legislation. It is not
acted on. It is not resourced properly. It is not prioritised, it
is not a political priority. Domestic abuse sits within the Home
Office in our country. That is where the policy is held from. If you can
find me any evidence that they care as much about this as they do about
small boats, I will give you the amount of money it would take to
resource it properly. They just is not the push and the will and the
drive to do this. There has to be political will from the top to make
sure that this is happening in every police force, every Social Services,
every health authority. Whilst we have you, obviously you resigned
over the Gaza vote, the frontbench has changed its position, is the
leadership -- is the Labour leadership in the right place on
this and would you rejoin if you asked? I am very pleased to say the
position has moved. I think they are in the right place, I think what
happened in Parliament this week didn't cover anybody in particular
glory, but I was glad to see the motion actually passed another
passing of that motion, the Labour motion that's it immediate ceasefire
and no ground invasion in Rafah, we have to make that passing of that
motion means something -- that's it an immediate ceasefire. Resigning
over your principles and motions, that is not enough, that is the
least we should do as politicians, it is the work we do now to make
sure these things mean something and influence our government because we
don't have influence over the Israeli government or Hamas. Thank
you for joining us, Jess Phillips.
The Americans are back on the Moon - for the first time
since the Apollo era.
May just about.
Maybe just about.
Texan company Intuitive Machines become the first company
to achieve this giant step for private commerce.
We can see the pictures of the lunar surface -
it was meant to land on a 5km-high mountain on the moon
called Malapert.
This could be a precursor to renewed efforts to land
man back on the Moon, and even Space or Moon tourism.
Doctor Simon is from the interplanetary Society. We haven't
had confirmation just yet that they have got there. We think happen at
any moment. What would it mean to see not just the Americans back on
the Moon, but also a commercial entity having driven that, is it any
different for a government entity? Absolutely, it is tremendously
exciting. We have this tremendous opportunity, we are going back to
the Moon. I think that will create a lot of inspiration for the general
public and for all industries involved. It is really paving the
way to show a new way in which we can explore Space. A new way? Space
traditionally has been very challenging. It is a new activity,
really. We have been doing it for decades, but really to do it more
sustainably and cost effectively, I think we need to encourage
commercial, the commercial sector to pick up Space operations. So this is
really encouraging that. For you, this is a precursor to tourism,
basically, is that what you are suggesting? Yes, I think there are a
number of avenues which I think we can go with Space. Space tourism. We
do have the picture now of the control room, though not the actual
Moon. We think they are very, very close to touchdown, 12 minutes, so
we will not sit on the programme, but nearly. Sorry, continue. The
Moon is a really ambitious target and I think we can get there. But
really, space tourism would start closer to Earth. We can do it in
orbit and it is going to require is developing a lot of the hardware and
activities to get us there safely first. So there is a lot of stepping
stones that we can take, but the Moon is a great aspiration. But
tourism sounds interesting, fine, commercial, if you can make money
out of it, fine. It doesn't sound as noble ambition is pure science,
which is what most of the space activities have been centred on.
Exactly, these go hand-in-hand. A lot of them might have different
objectives. Space tourism is really an extension of the existing tourism
market. But in the process of doing both tourism and exploration, you
will be developing processes and hardware and mission operations that
both support each other. That is the simulation, I should say, before we
get too excited about that. Ten minutes to go on this. But you think
there is further economic opportunities like mining and
things? Seriously? Seriously, yes. Obviously ultimately in the long
run, Earth has a finite set of resources and it is partly about
survival. But also, it is about our human nature driving as well. And I
think exploring Space and being able to utilise the multiple and
plentiful resources could and will help life on Earth as well as our
future presence in Space, but there are stepping stones to take with
that. A few steps yet, before we are building factories on the main
holiday results! Thank you to Simon for that.
That's all from us tonight.
We didn't quite make it to the Moon, that will be in about ten minutes.
I'm back tomorrow.
Until then, goodnight.