fa ncy flowers, fancy flowers, but no fancy weather? israel's prime minister is weighing up israel's prime minister is weighing up the risks of this programme continues on bbc one.

the prime minister will get his smoking ban, but only because the opposition rode to the rescue. what does it tell us that a senior cabinet minister, five other ministers and two former tory prime ministers refused to support rishi sunak? borisjohnson called sunak�*s plan for the ban absolutely nuts and mad. will it prove to be a hollow victory for the prime minister, with his authority on the line yet again? we'll be joined by two conservative mps — craig whitaker who voted against and caroline johnson who backed her boss. and judging the political fallout

will be rosa prince from politico and from the sunday telegraph, camilla turner. also tonight the post office inquiry reveals yet another failing by senior management. we've been speaking to the post office minister kevin holingrake. of course conversations are going on with fujitsu. when we get the final compensation bill and the extent of their culpability that is the time to denigrate what proportion of that compensation bill they should pay. and an extraordinary insight into the workings of the iranian regime. a former senior british diplomat speaks for the first time about the day he was attacked by the revolutionary guard. i was being dragged from one detention centre to another during the 2a hours. it was quite, quite lively! i think the iranians had this fear that some miraculous sas operation from a helicopter would suddenly come and release me. good evening. it was a victory for rishi sunak,

but in the teeth of tory opposition. the tobacco and vape bill, designed to create a smoke free generation, and successive generations, passed the debate stage, but has it been at a political cost for the prime minister? nick's here. all the machinations and different arithmetic, did it damage rishi sunak? fist arithmetic, did it damage rishi sunak? �* ., sunak? at the end of the day the prime minister _ sunak? at the end of the day the prime minister did _ sunak? at the end of the day the prime minister did win _ sunak? at the end of the day the prime minister did win and - sunak? at the end of the day the prime minister did win and one i prime minister did win and one cabinet member said this was a free vote so numbers do not matter all that matters is that you win. and this was a flagship policy the prime minister announced at his party conference speech a few months ago and it looks like if the election is not held any time soon this will probably hit the statute books. all well and good but as you said rishi sunak needed the opposition parties to get this through because only 178 conservative mps voted for it, 59 conservative mps voted for it, 59

conservative mps voted against and 106 conservative mps abstained. if you add up the number of opposition mps had they voted against then rishi sunak would have lost. i spoke to another cabinet member who said you're in the curious position of the government putting business in front of parliament and the main opposition parties were instructing their mps to vote for the government business and the government was giving its mps a free vote. a bit of an inquest going on, loyalists saying that the prime minister did the right thing otherwise he would have had a rebellion but one former minister said that today rishi sunak has blown up as party once again and there are conservative mps at other�*s throats. there are conservative mps at other's throats.— there are conservative mps at other's throats. and how has the 'ostlin: other's throats. and how has the jostling played — other's throats. and how has the jostling played out? _ other's throats. and how has the jostling played out? well - other's throats. and how has the jostling played out? well kemi l jostling played out? well kemi badenoch in _ jostling played out? well kemi badenoch in the _ jostling played out? well kemi badenoch in the cabinet, - jostling played out? well kemi| badenoch in the cabinet, suella braverman, robertjenrick and liz trust went against the government. and should the conservatives lose the next election they all would

perhaps want to contest in the leadership contest. one member of the cabinet asked who went against it and they said to me that is kemi badenoch�*s. penny mordaunt abstained, his colleagues tonight telling the bbc it would be challenging for a cabinet minister to take on the prime minister. and had she voted again that would have been plastering. perhaps she is thinking of kemi badenoch. another want to look at is priti patel. and what they have in common is that there brexiteers but they have diplomatic relations with the left of the party. and after the election, you need to win from the right and the left. that could be what they are thinking. i'm joined now by two conservative mps who voted different ways on tonight's bill. craig whittiker, the mp for calder valley and former health minister carolinejohnson mp, who is also a doctor.

craig whittaker, this was a legacy legislation for rishi sunak. does it matter to you if tory opposition and abstention is weak and his authority? i abstention is weak and his authority?— abstention is weak and his authori ? ., ., ~ ., , authority? i do not think that is the case- _ authority? i do not think that is the case. going _ authority? i do not think that is the case. going back— authority? i do not think that is the case. going back to - authority? i do not think that is the case. going back to 2006 l authority? i do not think that is - the case. going back to 2006 when the case. going back to 2006 when the vote was about whether we took smoking out of pubs in public places it was a free vote. this kind of debate and vote has always been around a free vote. i do not quite think he is floundering like people are saying. but think he is floundering like people are sa inc. �* ., ,, are saying. but look at the nhs stru: calin are saying. but look at the nhs struggling and many _ are saying. but look at the nhs struggling and many of- are saying. but look at the nhs struggling and many of us - are saying. but look at the nhs| struggling and many of us know are saying. but look at the nhs - struggling and many of us know the horror of lung cancer and if anything can and that horrific disease and help the nhs it should be pursued?— disease and help the nhs it should be ursued? , ., , , ., be pursued? yes, i absolutely agree that we need — be pursued? yes, i absolutely agree that we need to _ be pursued? yes, i absolutely agree that we need to pursue _ be pursued? yes, i absolutely agree that we need to pursue the - be pursued? yes, i absolutely agree| that we need to pursue the cessation of smoking but this bill will not achieve for the government want to

achieve. we already have 100,000 young people, children, who start smoking every year. it is already bad for them to buy cigarettes so what are the government think that this will change things this time as time progresses? i would much prefer if the government without serious... it could be a trigger for change. let's not mess around at the edges but go for goal. the government should have said at some point in the future let's have a date will be banned smoking and the sale of cigarettes in this country. if they wanted to be really bold about the health of the nation that is what i would do. ~ ., ., ., . ., ., would do. would that not create a black market _ would do. would that not create a black market anyway? _ would do. would that not create a black market anyway? we - would do. would that not create a black market anyway? we alreadyj would do. would that not create a - black market anyway? we already have a hue black black market anyway? we already have a huge black market _ black market anyway? we already have a huge black market but _ black market anyway? we already have a huge black market but the _ a huge black market but the government made a big play in the bill today to bring in £30 million. the budget for trading standards in 2009 was 230 million and today 102.5 million. so 30 million will not even

touch the sides. if they are serious about the stuff they need to make serious investments and take serious decisions about it. that serious investments and take serious decisions about it.— decisions about it. that is your view, decisions about it. that is your view. what _ decisions about it. that is your view, what about _ decisions about it. that is your view, what about kemi - decisions about it. that is your . view, what about kemi badenoch, decisions about it. that is your - view, what about kemi badenoch, no one should treat legally competent adults different, have different rights simply because of the day that they were born? do you also take that view?— take that view? no, i actually prescribe _ take that view? no, i actually prescribe to _ take that view? no, i actually prescribe to the _ take that view? no, i actually prescribe to the fact - take that view? no, i actually prescribe to the fact that - take that view? no, i actually| prescribe to the fact that what take that view? no, i actually - prescribe to the fact that what we need to do is we need to, we are talking about the health of the nation so let's take a decision about the health of the nation. kemi badenoch absolutely has a valid point about treating adults differently because that is what will happen as time progresses. a 30—year—old will be treated differently to a ao—year—old. i'm sure there will be some legal challenge some point down the line. do not wish that you had never been able to start and that bill if you had been young wife's stop that? pm? had been young wife's stop that? why

is this bill had been young wife's stop that? twig is this bill necessarily, where had been young wife's stop that? “the�*ig' is this bill necessarily, where we already have legislation banning the sale of cigarettes to children, why do we still have 100,000 children smoking today? but do we still have 100,000 children smoking today?— do we still have 100,000 children smoking today? but what do you do, ou do not smoking today? but what do you do, you do not smoke _ smoking today? but what do you do, you do not smoke any _ smoking today? but what do you do, you do not smoke any more? - smoking today? but what do you do, you do not smoke any more? as - smoking today? but what do you do, you do not smoke any more? as i i smoking today? but what do you do, | you do not smoke any more? as i said toda in you do not smoke any more? as i said today in the — you do not smoke any more? as i said today in the chamber _ you do not smoke any more? as i said today in the chamber i _ you do not smoke any more? as i said today in the chamber i use _ you do not smoke any more? as i said today in the chamber i use heated - today in the chamber i use heated tobacco. but yes, the heated tobacco was the big life changerfor tobacco. but yes, the heated tobacco was the big life changer for me. that was the cessation tool that enables me to get away from cigarettes. it enables me to get away from cigarettes-— enables me to get away from ciuarettes. , , ., , i. cigarettes. it seems to be your view that ou cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want _ cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want to _ cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want to see _ cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want to see more - cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want to see more help - cigarettes. it seems to be your view that you want to see more help for. that you want to see more help for cessation. but does that exist? there is no evidence to say that in the long term vaping is good for anyone. 30% of people who do that still smoke. the use vaping in places where they cannot smoke a cigarette. places where they cannot smoke a ciuarette. ., ., .,

cigarette. doctor caroline johnson, ou cigarette. doctor caroline johnson, you worked — cigarette. doctor caroline johnson, you worked in _ cigarette. doctor caroline johnson, you worked in respiratory medicinej you worked in respiratory medicine and you spoke passionately in parliament today, tell us your experience of respiratory medicine, did even your eyes? i experience of respiratory medicine, did even your eyes?— did even your eyes? i worked in a respiratory _ did even your eyes? i worked in a respiratoryjob — did even your eyes? i worked in a respiratoryjob in _ did even your eyes? i worked in a respiratoryjob in medicine - did even your eyes? i worked in a respiratoryjob in medicine when l did even your eyes? i worked in a j respiratoryjob in medicine when i first graduated back in 2001. and i looked _ first graduated back in 2001. and i looked after patients with lung cancer, — looked after patients with lung cancer, with chronic obstructive pulmonary— cancer, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and various form of preferences and i learnt that smoking — of preferences and i learnt that smoking kills people prematurely and also causes ill health and disability and conditions that make you breathless and require repeated admission— you breathless and require repeated admission to hospital. basically that make your life miserable. but the that make your life miserable. hit the argument you just heard is that these things will not be stopped by banning cigarettes to children after a certain time and of a certain age because most children do not buy their cigarettes in shops but in the

black market. we their cigarettes in shops but in the black market-— their cigarettes in shops but in the black market. ~ ,, ., , black market. we know most people who start smoking _ black market. we know most people who start smoking start _ black market. we know most people who start smoking start when - black market. we know most people| who start smoking start when they're young, _ who start smoking start when they're young, and _ who start smoking start when they're young, and almost all before their 25. young, and almost all before their 25 when — young, and almost all before their 25. when they increased in 2007 the a-e 25. when they increased in 2007 the age you _ 25. when they increased in 2007 the age you can — 25. when they increased in 2007 the age you can buy cigarettes from 16, 218 go— age you can buy cigarettes from 16, 218 go out— age you can buy cigarettes from 16, 218 go out there was a significant fall in_ 218 go out there was a significant fall in the — 218 go out there was a significant fall in the number of children age 16 and _ fall in the number of children age 16 and i7— fall in the number of children age 16 and 17 smoking. obviously a declining — 16 and 17 smoking. obviously a declining trend but a more significant trend than those of 16 or i7~ _ significant trend than those of 16 or i7~ so — significant trend than those of 16 or 17. so we know from evidence if you increase — or 17. so we know from evidence if you increase the age at which children— you increase the age at which children can access cigarettes they you've _ children can access cigarettes they you've reduced the number of young people _ you've reduced the number of young people that smoke. if 18 to 24—year—olds are not able to smoke what _ 24—year—olds are not able to smoke what you _ 24—year—olds are not able to smoke what you will see is becomes less cool and — what you will see is becomes less cool and attractive to teenagers trying _ cool and attractive to teenagers trying to — cool and attractive to teenagers trying to emulate their older peers. but should — trying to emulate their older peers. but should not people have freedom of choice? that is the conservative way, free choice. borisjohnson has called the snaps, mad. way, free choice. boris johnson has called the snaps, mad.— called the snaps, mad. people do have free choice _ called the snaps, mad. people do have free choice but _ called the snaps, mad. people do have free choice but there - called the snaps, mad. people do have free choice but there are - have free choice but there are limits — have free choice but there are limits to —

have free choice but there are limits to free choice. you cannot ride a _ limits to free choice. you cannot ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive _ ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a _ ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt. there _ or drive a car without a seat belt. there are — or drive a car without a seat belt. there are various different things, you cannot — there are various different things, you cannot take cocaine or smoke cannabis — you cannot take cocaine or smoke cannabis. there are things that are recognised — cannabis. there are things that are recognised as harmful and there is restricted — recognised as harmful and there is restricted access for adults as welt — restricted access for adults as well. ,, ., restricted access for adults as well, ,, ., ., restricted access for adults as well. ., ., , well. so what about the point is that there _ well. so what about the point is that there is _ well. so what about the point is that there is nothing _ well. so what about the point is that there is nothing in - well. so what about the point is that there is nothing in here - well. so what about the point is | that there is nothing in here that will have an impact on vaping and there are studies to show that ultimately is not less harmful. i’m ultimately is not less harmful. i'm very worried _ ultimately is not less harmful. i'm very worried about the potential long—term harm is caused by vaping and i_ long—term harm is caused by vaping and i have _ long—term harm is caused by vaping and i have been campaigning on that. so why— and i have been campaigning on that. so why did _ and i have been campaigning on that. so why did they not go for vaping? there are lots of messages and methods— there are lots of messages and methods to combat vaping in the bill. methods to combat vaping in the hilt there — methods to combat vaping in the bill. there is a statutory incident on the _ bill. there is a statutory incident on the environment used in

environmental legislation to remove the abitity— environmental legislation to remove the ability for people to get disposable tapes which we know are attractive _ disposable tapes which we know are attractive to children but they are an environmental hazard. there are measures— an environmental hazard. there are measures in— an environmental hazard. there are measures in the bill to limit access to the _ measures in the bill to limit access to the apes — measures in the bill to limit access to the apes according to colour or flavour— to the apes according to colour or flavour and — to the apes according to colour or flavour and the way it is displayed in the _ flavour and the way it is displayed in the shops. this flavour and the way it is displayed in the shops-— in the shops. this is about health but lets talk _ in the shops. this is about health but lets talk about _ in the shops. this is about health but lets talk about the _ in the shops. this is about health but lets talk about the politics. . but lets talk about the politics. what do you make of the opposition by senior cabinet ministers, doesn“t key worry about the impact it will have on the authority of rishi sunak? ., . «e have on the authority of rishi sunak? ., . ,, :: :: ~ ., , sunak? no, back in 2006 when a bill was brought — sunak? no, back in 2006 when a bill was brought in _ sunak? no, back in 2006 when a bill was brought in to _ sunak? no, back in 2006 when a bill was brought in to prevent _ sunak? no, back in 2006 when a bill was brought in to prevent smoking . sunak? no, back in 2006 when a billj was brought in to prevent smoking in public— was brought in to prevent smoking in public places that was a free vote and the _ public places that was a free vote and the labour party had a similar rebellion — and the labour party had a similar rebellion of — and the labour party had a similar rebellion of around 50 people and i understand four members of the cabinet — understand four members of the cabinet did not agree with that at that time — cabinet did not agree with that at that time. so the fact that we have members — that time. so the fact that we have members of the cabinet that do not

agree _ members of the cabinet that do not agree is— members of the cabinet that do not agree isjust a sign of a healthy democracy. but agree isjust a sign of a healthy democracy-— agree isjust a sign of a healthy democracy. but it is also true to sa that democracy. but it is also true to say that part — democracy. but it is also true to say that part of _ democracy. but it is also true to say that part of the _ democracy. but it is also true to say that part of the argument i say that part of the argument against supporting this bill has been a libertarian argument that actually you should not restrict, it is conservative to restrict freedoms and similarly tax rises you could say or state intervention, or very un—conservative. i say or state intervention, or very un-conservative._ say or state intervention, or very un-conservative. i do not agree, i think protecting — un-conservative. i do not agree, i think protecting children - un-conservative. i do not agree, i think protecting children and - un-conservative. i do not agree, i| think protecting children and young people _ think protecting children and young people is— think protecting children and young people is a very conservative thing to do _ people is a very conservative thing to do. . ., people is a very conservative thing to do. . «e y., people is a very conservative thing todo. . , . joining me now is camilla turner, who's political editor at the sunday telegraph; and rosa prince, who is the deputy uk editor at politico. what do you make of this politically, what happened tonight and what was the impact on the conservative party? i and what was the impact on the conservative party?— conservative party? i think it cemented — conservative party? i think it cemented this _ conservative party? i think it cemented this narrative - conservative party? i think it. cemented this narrative where conservative party? i think it- cemented this narrative where it is a government that seems to be running out of steam and a party thatis running out of steam and a party that is not very comfortable with itself. rishi sunak pretty much did

not have a choice about whether to call a free vote because he knew if he did not he would have a big rebellion on his hands. and the number of people who either voted or abstained was almost the same as the number who walk through the lobbies behind him which is not comfortable for a prime minister. imilli behind him which is not comfortable for a prime minister.— for a prime minister. will it resonate — for a prime minister. will it resonate with _ for a prime minister. will it resonate with the - for a prime minister. will it resonate with the public . for a prime minister. will it | resonate with the public that for a prime minister. will it - resonate with the public that here was rishi sunak standing up for something he believed in is a kind of moral position and to hang with all the naysayers? i of moral position and to hang with all the naysayers?— of moral position and to hang with all the naysayers? i think we must remember— all the naysayers? i think we must remember that _ all the naysayers? i think we must remember that politically - all the naysayers? i think we must remember that politically this - all the naysayers? i think we must remember that politically this is i remember that politically this is notjust— remember that politically this is notjust any old remember that politically this is not just any old piece of legislation but one of the flagship bills for— legislation but one of the flagship bills for rishi sunak and something he wants— bills for rishi sunak and something he wants to be part of his legacy. and the _ he wants to be part of his legacy. and the fact that as we just heard almost _ and the fact that as we just heard almost half of his own mps, members of his— almost half of his own mps, members of his own _ almost half of his own mps, members of his own party voted against it including — of his own party voted against it including a member of the cabinet and five _ including a member of the cabinet and five ministers isjust not a good — and five ministers isjust not a good look— and five ministers isjust not a good look for a prime minister to be flogging _ good look for a prime minister to be flogging something that his own mps do not _ flogging something that his own mps do not agree with.

so he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't come if you didn't bring it forward, people would say didn't try it out but damned if he has because he has been exposed yet again, flushing out opposition? i think the reason is not a super big deal is a must because it's been going on for quite a while now. he said these noises off from the x prime ministers, borisjohnson prime ministers, boris johnson called prime ministers, borisjohnson called it nuts as you mentioned, liz truss speaking in the chamber for the first time this year and although these are not any one of them able to launch a rebellion against him, it's almost as tick, tick, death by a thousand cuts a punter there were some quite serious things in there, so graham brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, and it's another sign that people are looking at after the election. brute looking at after the election. we used the word legacy and one of the way of looking at legacy is to say actually it was vanity, over may be

actually it was vanity, over may be a superficial gaze in the party which would have helped if it had not been for this pond and it actually risks doing further damage in the eyes of the public, it seems like an ungovernable party. i think that is right _ like an ungovernable party. i think that is right and _ like an ungovernable party. i think that is right and it _ like an ungovernable party. i think that is right and it shines - like an ungovernable party. i think that is right and it shines a - that is right and it shines a light on how far— that is right and it shines a light on how farapart that is right and it shines a light on how far apart the conservative party— on how far apart the conservative party are — on how far apart the conservative party are from each other. you have various _ party are from each other. you have various different factions and beliefs — various different factions and beliefs and some people are left thinking, — beliefs and some people are left thinking, is this even a cohesive party? _ thinking, is this even a cohesive .a ? ., , , thinking, is this even a cohesive party? that is exactly what i was auoin to party? that is exactly what i was going to say _ party? that is exactly what i was going to say because _ party? that is exactly what i was going to say because we - party? that is exactly what i was going to say because we are - party? that is exactly what i was going to say because we are in l party? that is exactly what i was going to say because we are in a j going to say because we are in a situation now where everyone is trying to decode what that actually means for the future direction of the conservative party put opinion polls a pretty uniform and if they are right they will lose the election. so therefore, when people are putting x on the spot, will they actually know what they are voting for if they vote conservative? it’s for if they vote conservative? it's a aood for if they vote conservative? it�*s a good question and i think as you said, you also have all of these jostling for after the election, almost like they're not pitching at the electorate any more, they“re pitching at electorate after this. i

thought it was quite extraordinary, kemi badenoch, rejecting her prime minister's legacy, she stood there with the rest of them at the conservative conference, this was their big offering, taking decisions for the long term, that was the temporary slogan in november or october and now she has said that she is not about that, about what my career is. �* ., ., , , career is. and on that basis, it must be very _ career is. and on that basis, it must be very galling _ career is. and on that basis, it must be very galling for- career is. and on that basis, it must be very galling for rishi l career is. and on that basis, it - must be very galling for rishi sunak because he did not look at kemi badenoch and say, you know, cabinet responsibility? he badenoch and say, you know, cabinet responsibility?— responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're _ responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off. — responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off, he _ responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off, he had _ responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off, he had to - responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off, he had to take - responsibility? he couldn't say back me or you're off, he had to take it l me or you're off, he had to take it and watch her walk through the lobby. it is a sign of his diminished authority within the cabinet. �* ., , ., diminished authority within the cabinet. �* ., .,~e diminished authority within the cabinet. . ., diminished authority within the cabinet. ., ., ., cabinet. and what you make of what nick said about _ cabinet. and what you make of what nick said about priti _ cabinet. and what you make of what nick said about priti patel— cabinet. and what you make of what nick said about priti patel and - nick said about priti patel and penny mordaunt, who on the right of the party would have links to the left, will people think that actually, i will vote conservative and keep that vote in the hope that they can hold the party together? i think all these potential leadership candidates are watching and kind of

making _ candidates are watching and kind of making their moves incredibly carefully— making their moves incredibly carefully because as you said, everyone _ carefully because as you said, everyone in the conservative party now has— everyone in the conservative party now has one eye on the future of the party, _ now has one eye on the future of the party, not _ now has one eye on the future of the party. not so — now has one eye on the future of the party, not so much about the now and the election— party, not so much about the now and the election and rishi sunak's premiership, people are thinking beyond _ premiership, people are thinking beyond that and thinking when we enter— beyond that and thinking when we enter the — beyond that and thinking when we enter the next phase of the conservative party, potentially in opposition, how am i going to look, how will i_ opposition, how am i going to look, how will i picture myself and present— how will i picture myself and present myself? so all my moves now are crucially _ present myself? so all my moves now are crucially important for that. it are crucially important for that. [it also are crucially important for that. it also begs the question, how do you construct a manifesto? . it’s also begs the question, how do you construct a manifesto?— also begs the question, how do you construct a manifesto? , it's a good oint. construct a manifesto? , it's a good point- think — construct a manifesto? , it's a good point. think that _ construct a manifesto? , it's a good point. think that what _ construct a manifesto? , it's a good point. think that what rishi - construct a manifesto? , it's a good point. think that what rishi sunak l point. think that what rishi sunak does not want to do is what he did with the smoking policy, which he went into with the conference, he needed something for his speech, he pulls a rabbit out of a hat without thinking through. do i really want to be doing this, is it my conservative is, am i about banning things? can i carry my party with me if i am? they have to be more

considered but to have some sort of form of words that the whole body can you light bite and that does not look like an easy project. == can you light bite and that does not look like an easy project.— look like an easy pro'ect. -- unite behind. and h look like an easy project. -- unite behind. and everybody _ look like an easy project. -- unite behind. and everybody is - look like an easy project. -- unite behind. and everybody is talking l behind. and everybody is talking endlessly about when the election might be, and if the polls are right, i spoke to one conservative mp who said the difference is between whether it will be a reasonable defeat or a rout, and about has serious implications for the future of the conservative party. the future of the conservative pa . . “ , the future of the conservative pa . . �* , ., , party. that's right, with all this schemin: party. that's right, with all this scheming about _ party. that's right, with all this scheming about what _ party. that's right, with all this scheming about what the - party. that's right, with all this| scheming about what the future party. that's right, with all this i scheming about what the future of the party— scheming about what the future of the party will look like, what kind of leader— the party will look like, what kind of leader they will have, we have to bear in _ of leader they will have, we have to bear in mind — of leader they will have, we have to bear in mind that the actual make—up of the _ bear in mind that the actual make—up of the conservative party might be very different if lots of mps are potentially going to lose their seats — potentially going to lose their seats. will the balance of power li-ht seats. will the balance of power light with — seats. will the balance of power light with those on the right or the more _ light with those on the right or the more moderate rink that will have an impact _ more moderate rink that will have an impact on _ more moderate rink that will have an impact on future leader will be. because — impact on future leader will be. because in the first instance, its needing — because in the first instance, its needing to — because in the first instance, its needing to impress their mp colleagues to try and get them through— colleagues to try and get them through the first steps of those leadership grounds. find

through the first steps of those leadership grounds.— through the first steps of those leadership grounds. and there is a ruestion leadership grounds. and there is a question over _ leadership grounds. and there is a question over whether _ leadership grounds. and there is a question over whether or - leadership grounds. and there is a question over whether or not - leadership grounds. and there is a | question over whether or not there should be an early election, does it discount what happens in the may local elections? it would stop a vote of no confidence and you could then go into an election so what about those calculations? jeremy hunt today _ about those calculations? jeremy hunt today seem _ about those calculations? jeremy hunt today seem to _ about those calculations? jeremy hunt today seem to sort - about those calculations? jeremy hunt today seem to sort of- about those calculations? jeremy hunt today seem to sort of give l about those calculations? jeremyj hunt today seem to sort of give a little hint that he was very much thinking about the economy coming goodin thinking about the economy coming good in the autumn and that seemed to suggest they are not thinking along those lines. i personally think it's more likely rishi sunak would like to go long and all the way and hope something turns up but i wonder if, with all the disquiet and unhappiness on the benches, those letters rippling in, may be almost by accident they end up triggering a confidence vote that he would probably win but would he be able to go to an electorate and say that i'm the of this divided party? when he so badly. find that i'm the of this divided party? when he so badly.— when he so badly. and of course let's not forget _ when he so badly. and of course let's not forget reform, - when he so badly. and of course let's not forget reform, gainingl let's not forget reform, gaining some ground in the polls. that's

riaht and some ground in the polls. that's right and i— some ground in the polls. that's right and i suppose _ some ground in the polls. that's right and i suppose the - some ground in the polls. that's right and i suppose the pitch - some ground in the polls. that'sl right and i suppose the pitch they are making to voters is the conservative party have lost their way, _ conservative party have lost their way, we — conservative party have lost their way, we are the ones standing up for these conservative values that they used to— these conservative values that they used to hold and now they don't succumb — used to hold and now they don't succumb to us.— used to hold and now they don't succumb to us. thank you both very much for now- _ there have been some jawdropping moments at the post office inquiry, none more so than today when the former chief operating officer david miller, who set up the horizon system, admitted that when in 2003, he was given an expert report detailing problems with horizon, he didn't read it. it's the latest in a line of startling revelations pointing to a business that was massively malfunctioning. ironically, the post office minister kevin hollinrake was, this morning, in his capacity as an mp, taking part in a round table discussion about building resilience in business — in this case through social enterprise. i sat down with him at westminister earlier this evening and before we talked about the post office fiasco, i asked him whether social enterprise could tackle the problem of too many new businesses failing.

i think social enterprises have always existed alongside fully for profit enterprises. that's not, it's not something new. in fact, my mum was a young person who set up a social enterprise herself, the york association for the care and rehabilitation of offenders when i was a small boy. so these things have always existed. can ijust challenge you in terms of the uk having a start up problem. we're the third in the oecd, 39 countries, the 39 biggest countries on the planet, in terms of startups in this country. we've got a proud record. the third fastest growing economy in the g7, so faster than france, germany, japan. it's a really good record, actually, in terms of business in the uk, but we can always improve. you are an mp who was in business, so that gives you a head start on lots of mps. and i want to talk to you now about your role as post office minister and the mess that the post office is in. three examples. former post office chief exec

adam crozier told the inquiry that“s going on just now that when he was chief exec he didn't know the post office was prosecuting people. last week, lord arbuthnot told newsnight that when paul venables was post office ceo, she lied to him. —— paula vennells. today we heard it from the former chief operating officer, david miller, who set up the horizon scheme. we heard him say that when he was given an expert report in 2003 about problems with horizon, he didn't read it. so the actions and inactions of these people have possibly destroyed lives. doesn't that make you furious? absolutely. and notjust me furious. imagine the postmasters who've been on the sharp end of this. i mean, you're talking about a billion pounds in compensation. you“re talking about countless lives destroyed, divorces, suicides. it is absolutely horrendous. and people need to be held to account for that. that's what the inquiry is doing. the evidence you're talking about has come before the inquiry. as a result of the inquiry, which this government established, the statutory inquiry, which has powers to compel witnesses and evidence,

when we've got to the bottom of this, which is what the inquiry is there for, it will conclude by the end of the year, report next year, we want people to be held to account. prosecutions? and i've been very clear where that threshold is reached in terms of criminal prosecutions, i would welcome them in taking forward. but let's look at the government's role in this because in a sense, the government was a single shareholder. do you think there was a lack of oversight by the government and a failure to have accountability by the government? mistakes have been made. i think we've often said we“ve learnt the lessons of this, we need to make sure we make a betterjob of this in the future. this should never have happened. there's been successive failures across all political parties, whoever was running the system at the time. i think any post office minister, any official who's been involved in this in the past, including myself, will look at this and think we should have done better. but that's what we're there to, the inquiry is there to establish whose fault was it, who's directly responsible, who's indirectly responsible. and then we should take

action where we can. yes, but the problem is that you say yourself that everything“s been too slow and piecemeal. and the sad but definite fact is that some people who have been involved in the post office scandal and who have suffered will die before this is concluded. well, there's two things we need to get right, and one is the compensation to people. and we're accelerating compensation rapidly. we“re overturning 700 convictions by statute within parliament injuly, byjuly. we“ll open the door to hundreds of millions of pounds of compensation to those people who have been prosecuted. so we are accelerating compensation. of course, we're concerned about people, particularly people who are nearing the end of life while these matters are ongoing. so we're keen to accelerate that, of course, and we're keen to hold people to account, including criminal prosecutions where possible. let“s leave all that to one side and talk about fujitsu, who ran the horizon scheme. as you say, many people,

4000 people at least involved in this scandal. it could take years for some of them. you told newsnight that fujitsu should pay compensation. i wonder how those talks are going? well, i absolutely agree with that myself. they should pay compensation, and it's good to hear fujitsu when they give evidence to the select committee inquiry on this. they admitted they've got moral responsibility to pay compensation. but what pressure are you putting on them? because actually that is separate to the legal wrangles. there could be, to each person who is involved, a one—off compensatory payment given by fujitsu of, i don't know, £100,000 each. this is going to cost the taxpayer, the compensation, around a billion pounds. that's what we budgeted for it. exactly. so why doesn't fujitsu take its responsibility seriously? we feel that fujitsu should contribute to that bill, the compensation bill. not directly to claimants, we're doing that, and we're doing that in a way that pays redress for financial hardship,

for financial loss, and for other impacts such as health impacts, mental health and physical health impacts. now, in terms of when we know the final bill, of course conversations are going on with fujitsu. of course they are. when we know the final compensation bill and the extent of their culpability, that is a time, i think, to then agree what proportion of that compensation bill they should pay. alan bates suggests something very radical. he suggests scrap the post office entirely and start again. what do you think about that? well, i don't agree with alan. i agree on many things and i pay tribute to all the work he's done. incredibly tenacious individual. but i still think the post office is at the heart of our communities, very highly valued by our communities. that has not been damaged by this. what's been damaged is the centre of the post office and some of the people at the centre. so i think the post office has a very bright future and we're hoping to lay out our plans for the future of the post office, putting the postmasters right

at the heart of that future, in the very near future. kevin hollinrake, thank you very much forjoining us. thank you. rosa and camilla are still here. first of all, the government's handling of this could go some way to restoring faith in politics if it's done well. it’s to restoring faith in politics if it's done well.— to restoring faith in politics if it's done well. �* , ., ., it's done well. it's done well, that is the crucial _ it's done well. it's done well, that is the crucial part _ it's done well. it's done well, that is the crucial part of _ it's done well. it's done well, that is the crucial part of your - is the crucial part of your statement. this has been one of the biggest _ statement. this has been one of the biggest miscarriages ofjustice in the uk _ biggest miscarriages ofjustice in the uk has ever seen and we are still, _ the uk has ever seen and we are still, despite the now common the issue _ still, despite the now common the issue is— still, despite the now common the issue is getting and rightly so in the media — issue is getting and rightly so in the media and by politicians, we still have — the media and by politicians, we still have not got the compensation payments _ still have not got the compensation payments out, still haven't fully worked — payments out, still haven't fully worked out the scheme of redress for all these _ worked out the scheme of redress for all these people who have suffered so much _ all these people who have suffered so much. even though people are talking _ so much. even though people are talking about it now, we still have not actually given these people justice — not actually given these people 'ustice. ~ . , ., ., justice. within a situation where every single _ justice. within a situation where every single complaint - justice. within a situation where every single complaint is - justice. within a situation where i every single complaint is different, it is mired in a lot of legal battles as well and also we have not

actually heard from some of the key protagonists point it's extraordinary that paula vennells, former ceo, she three days in may in front of the committee and it will be one of these defining moments when we can remember, some of us were when we listen to the westland debate, we will remember those days with paula vennells.— with paula vennells. definitely althou:h i with paula vennells. definitely although i think _ with paula vennells. definitely although i think there's - with paula vennells. definitely although i think there's a - with paula vennells. definitely l although i think there's a danger with these inquiries like with infected blood where it's an easy way for the government safe we had to wait until the end of the inquiry or the legal process or whatever —— for the government to say. kevin hollinrake is widely seen as a very competent minister, they probably have the best guy in the job but i think anyone watching that, in particular if you been a victim of this, will be saying, where is the urgency? your point about fujitsu coming up immediately with interim payments is a very good one. and payments is a very good one. and interestingly. _ payments is a very good one. and interestingly, with fujitsu, they have already accepted moral responsibility. it would have been a

possibility to find some compensation across the board, a holding pattern which at least held their feet to the fire and showed their feet to the fire and showed the government was moving forward? absolutely but i think the problem is that— absolutely but i think the problem is that until very recently, basically until the itv drama that really— basically until the itv drama that really put — basically until the itv drama that really put a lot of prominence on this issue. — really put a lot of prominence on this issue, itjust has not been a top priority— this issue, itjust has not been a top priority for people in the government, for anyone really, the li-ht government, for anyone really, the light has— government, for anyone really, the light has not been shone on it until the last— light has not been shone on it until the last few months and it is only now we _ the last few months and it is only now we are — the last few months and it is only now we are getting it to be quite complex— now we are getting it to be quite complex legal questions about how to push this— complex legal questions about how to push this through quickly in a way that is— push this through quickly in a way that isjust — push this through quickly in a way that isjust and fair. it is complicated and that's why it cannot be done _ complicated and that's why it cannot be done in _ complicated and that's why it cannot be done in the click of a finger. but i _ be done in the click of a finger. but i think— be done in the click of a finger. but i think we need to try and capitalise _ but i think we need to try and capitalise on the attention it has an the _ capitalise on the attention it has an the public interest in it all to try and — an the public interest in it all to try and get— an the public interest in it all to try and get something through quickly — try and get something through ruickl . , ., quickly. the truth is that if criminal— quickly. the truth is that if criminal prosecutions, - quickly. the truth is that if criminal prosecutions, and quickly. the truth is that if - criminal prosecutions, and kevin hollinrake is quite clear that there probably will be, they will not come in for a long time. yes probably will be, they will not come in for a long time.— probably will be, they will not come in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say — in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say things _ in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say things like _ in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say things like we - in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say things like we had - in for a long time. yes and when you hear him say things like we had to i hear him say things like we had to

wait until the end of the process, as you said, there are people who are dying, many of these people are elderly, they don't have the time to wait for this very drawn out process. wait for this very drawn out process-— wait for this very drawn out rocess. ., , , ., , . nhs trusts “'undermine trust" if they are "defensive". that's the view of the health service ombudsman, speaking after newsnight“s investigation into patient safety concerns at university hospitals sussex nhs trust. her appearance in parliament camejust the day after the trust's chief executive emailed staff about what he called “'negative media coverage". joe pike“s here to explain. what is going on now? the background we should mention is the police are investigating 105 cases of alleged medical negligence at this trust. and today at the select committee was evidence following reporting last week and for the first time we can tell the full story of one surgeon who was demoted and another

dismissed from the trust and their employment tribunal. they raised problems about patient harm and what was described as a gang culture in one department which was vigorously contested by the nhs. that was mentioned today in parliament by the health service ombudsman and this is what she said. just health service ombudsman and this is what she said-— what she said. just last week there was a report _ what she said. just last week there was a report of— what she said. just last week there was a report of 105 _ what she said. just last week there was a report of 105 cases _ what she said. just last week there was a report of 105 cases being - was a report of 105 cases being investigated at the royal sussex by police _ investigated at the royal sussex by police on _ investigated at the royal sussex by police on the basis that earlier whistle—blowing claims had been dismissed as being made in bad faith _ dismissed as being made in bad faith so — dismissed as being made in bad faith. so this comes up a lot and when _ faith. so this comes up a lot and when it— faith. so this comes up a lot and when it comes up we see a lot of defensive — when it comes up we see a lot of defensive action by the nhs. and i think— defensive action by the nhs. and i think it _ defensive action by the nhs. and i think it undermines trust. because every— think it undermines trust. because every single one of those headlines

has patients and families out there thinking _ has patients and families out there thinking something is going on and why is— thinking something is going on and why is so— thinking something is going on and why is so much energy being diverted into trying _ why is so much energy being diverted into trying to silence whistle—blowers as opposed to looking — whistle—blowers as opposed to looking at what is going on in the first place — looking at what is going on in the first lace. ~ looking at what is going on in the first place-— looking at what is going on in the first lace. ~ . ., , first place. well in evidence it was said that if — first place. well in evidence it was said that if people _ first place. well in evidence it was said that if people feel _ first place. well in evidence it was said that if people feel they - first place. well in evidence it was said that if people feel they have l said that if people feel they have to go outside the organisation to the media or police then that is a sign of failure. and of course people have come to the media and also at the same time as this ombudsman has implied that parts of the nhs are defence of the chief executive of this trust has written an e—mail to staff and some of them told us that they believe it was defensive. the chief executive of the trust says last week our teams at the county received more negative media coverage that does not reflect the standards of care they provide

today the improvements that they've made in recent years and continue to have huge admiration for the determination of those teams to continue making improvements in such difficult circumstances. certainly since we have been reporting people have got in touch with us with more complaints and more stories and the police investigation continues. thank you. the fraught political standoff with iran that we are witnessing now is nothing new. in 1987 relations between the uk and the islamic republic deteriorated quickly after a senior british diplomat edward chaplin in tehran was kidnapped. that kidnap followed claims by iran that an iranian consulate worker in manchester was assaulted by british police. edward chaplin sat down withjoe inwood and spoke publically for the first time since he was seized and assaulted by revolutionary guards almost fifty years ago. good evening. a british diplomat kidnapped

in iran has been freed after nearly 24 hours... i was moved around from one detention centre to another during the 2a hours. it was quite, quite lively. i think the iranians had this fear that some miraculous sas operation from a helicopter would suddenly come and release me. the arrest of edward chaplin by iran was big news in 1987. the fallout lasted years and severely damaged diplomatic ties between the two nations. in the east of england... the kidnapping was i apparently linked to... but this extraordinary tale actually began at a shopping centre in manchester, and is a lesson in how things can escalate. there was a vice consul by the name of ali qassemi, who was arrested by the police for shoplifting. i can still remember the details. two pairs of socks and a lady“s purse, i think were nicked from the arndale centre, from bhs, ithink. and so he was ordered to report to a police station a week later,

i think. and when he failed to show, the police went looking for him and he, in the phrase of the police report, i think resisted arrest. so there was a scuffle. this afternoon, the iranian, ali qassemi, went to the foreign office to show off his injuries, such as they were. there are signs of. torture by the police. this the iranians took as a mortal, mortal insult that one of their diplomats, as they saw it, had been beaten up by the british police. and so the iranian reaction was that this had happened to somebody else, so another diplomat had to be mistreated, just as mr oassemi had in their eyes been mistreated. edward chaplin was stopped as he was driving his family home yesterday afternoon. he was beaten up and taken away... i was moved around from one detention centre to another during the 2a hours. it was quite, quite lively. so i was hooded and handcuffed and put in the footwell of a car and driven back to quite close,

in fact, to the compound where my wife and family were waiting for me. out of tehran at last and changing planes for london... after weeks of waiting, facing all sorts of charges and amid huge media interest, edward chaplin was eventually sent home. have you recovered completely from your ordeal? ifeel fine, yeah. as you can see, no marks. i feel fine. ijust need some sort of rest. perhaps the family in particular, perhaps worse for them. well, it was a big relief to finally get out, because, of course, i was worried for mainly the impact on on my family. and it was certainly true that it was much worse for nicky, my wife, who didn't know whether i was alive or dead or being tortured or whatever. and britain's retaliation for his beating and kidnapping... the episode was a disaster for uk—iranian relations. in diplomatic terms, what then happened? the foreign secretary registered our government's outrage and summoned

the iranian charge d“affaires. he made clear to the iranian authorities our view that they are responsible for securing his safety. it led to tit for tat expulsions. so when he and i think three others were expelled, then four, the iranians expelled four diplomats from our mission. and so it went on. it's a prelude to britain's toughest action yet in the tit for tat row... so more or less a freeze in the relationship across the board. and it took another 18 months or so before gradually we started to rebuild the relationship. it all started with a couple of pairs of socks and a lady“s handbag? yeah, that's the way these things happened. of course, the situation we see in the world now is far graver than that. we“re dealing with a far more serious situation. but do you think there are lessons that we can learn about what's happening now from this example, this sort of example? anger and wounded pride

and shock is not a good way to drive your policy when something dreadful happens. the longer term answer is it's, of course, very difficult to do in current circumstances, but the attempt should be made is to find ways of re—engaging. notjust us, but finding ways for the wider international community to re—engage with iran and in doing so, to distinguish between what the regime gets up to and the iranian people. obviously, a big obstacle to diplomatic negotiations is the fact that the americans don't even have an embassy in iran. no, i mean... and that really is an absurdity, if you think about it. i mean, for 45 years, there's been no formal relationship between the world's one remaining superpower and what, like it or not, is a regional power to be reckoned with and very influential, for good orfor ill, in the region and more widely. we are now in a situation where iran is much closer than it ever has been