no chemotherapy throughout the pandemic. i don't have much of a choice. and john lewis has warned of further store closures after it made a record annual loss of more than £500 million. good afternoon. prince william has insisted the royal family is not racist, in his first comments since the duke and duchess of sussex told us television that a member of the family had questioned what colour their child's skin would be. william also revealed he hasn't spoken to his brother since harry and meghan gave the interview to oprah winfrey, but said he would do. the duke and duchess of cambridge were visiting a school in east london when they were asked by a reporter about the controversy. have you spoken to your brother since the interview? no, i haven't spoken to him yet, but i will do. and can you just let me know, is the royalfamily a racist family, sir? no, we are very much not a racist family. our royal correpsondent, sarah campbell, joins me now. they are the first comments that we have heard on camera from a member of the royalfamily have heard on camera from a member of the royal family about this, and also a key member.— of the royal family about this, and also a key member. absolutely, yes. as ou also a key member. absolutely, yes. as you say. — also a key member. absolutely, yes. as you say. the _ also a key member. absolutely, yes. as you say, the comments _ also a key member. absolutely, yes. as you say, the comments were - also a key member. absolutely, yes. | as you say, the comments were made as the duke and duchess were leaving as the duke and duchess were leaving a school in london this morning. it is not usually the done thing on visits for reporters to shout questions at royals, but when there is a huge story like this, the rules are different. the reporter would not have expected to get an answer necessarily, but he got two. firstly, whether he had spoken to his brother. as you heard, and as harry spoke about in the interview, there was a rift between him and william. william said he hadn't spoken to him since the interview, but he did intend to. so that is interesting. then the second question, is the royalfamily racist? as much as the queen's statement on tuesday talked about the fact they would deal with this is a private family matter, i think it would have been very difficult to have met such a direct question with silence. that perhaps explains partly why prince william was so keen to get that very direct message back, that that wasn't the case. it is worth remembering and listening back to the section of the interview... race came up several times during the interview, but the key quote is when she relate a conversation that harry had allegedly had with a member of the family who had concerns about the colour of their baby's skin. we have interned in — colour of their baby's skin. we have interned in the _ colour of their baby's skin. we have interned in the conversation - colour of their baby's skin. we have interned in the conversation of, - colour of their baby's skin. we have interned in the conversation of, you will not _ interned in the conversation of, you will not be — interned in the conversation of, you will not be given security, not be given _ will not be given security, not be given a _ will not be given security, not be given a title. also, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might — conversations about how dark his skin might be when he is born. clearly— skin might be when he is born. clearly a — skin might be when he is born. clearly a damaging allegation. prince harry wouldn't go into any detail about who the person was, but he did say oprah winfrey made clear that harry had said to her that it definitely wasn't the queen, and it wasn't the duke of edinburgh, but that hasn't started a whole guessing game as to who it was. —— it has started a guessing game. the official buckingham palace statement made it clear that all of this would be discussed privately.— be discussed privately. indeed. i susect be discussed privately. indeed. i suspeet we _ be discussed privately. indeed. i suspect we will _ be discussed privately. indeed. i suspect we will probably - be discussed privately. indeed. i suspect we will probably not - be discussed privately. indeed. i | suspect we will probably not hear very much of that. prince william obviously making clear to the reported today that he will have a conversation with prince harry, so you would imagine the conversations have been going already between william, charles and the queen. at some point, harry and meghan will be brought into this. we probably won't know if it will be the queen, as the head of the household, who will make that initial contact. then others will be brought in. but clearly she was clear in her statement on tuesday, she said that the issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. then there was that phrase which has been picked up upon widely, while some recollections may vary, they will be addressed privately, so the clear indication that that there will be discussions held between clarity about who said what to who, when did it happen, and trying to nail down but if those recollections vary, which different recollections vary, which different recollections of talking about? clearly, how much the public will be allowed to know about those conversations, we don't know. thank you. detectives investigating the disappearance of sarah everard in south london are continuing to question a serving metropolitan police officer on suspicion of kidnap and murder. it follows the discovery of human remains in woods near ashford in kent yesterday. the 33—year—old marketing executive went missing as she walked home from a friend's house last week. the home secretary, priti patel, said this morning she is deeply saddened by developments. jon donnison reports. the discovery of human remains comes amidst a prominent newspaper coverage over sarah's disappearance, with many identifying the main suspect as a serving officer in the metropolitan police's diplomatic protection service. officers are continuing to search a house in deal in kent, where the man was arrested on tuesday, along with a woman in her 30s. she is a suspected of assisting an offender. and a large police operation is ongoing in woodland near ashford, where the remains were found. officers have also sealed off several garages in dover. in a tweet, the prime minister said... the home secretary, priti patel, said she too was deeply saddened, adding, "every woman should feel safe to walk on our streets without fear of harassment or violence." and the labour leader has also commented. this is awful news, and it has shaken all of us. i'd like to say these incidents are rare. but the truth is that violence against women and girls is far too common. sarah disappeared after walking home from a friend's house in clapham in south london last wednesday evening. the met has described news that one of their own is one of the primary suspects as shocking and deeply disturbing. with the investigation now shifted to kent, officers there are warning it could take time to formally identify the remains that have been found. but sarah's family and friends must now fear the worst. jon donnison, bbc news. the disappearance of sarah everard has prompted calls for more action to be taken to tackle intimidation and violence against women. the labour mpjess phillips said society and the justice system had to "wake up" to the threat that women face every day. thousands of people have gone online to express their anger at feeling unsafe in public places, as helena wilkinson reports. what happened to sarah everard is shocking. how can something so simple as walking home from a friend's house end like this? apparently snatched off the street, herfamily now dealing with the unthinkable. but this type of crime is uncommon. it is thankfully incredibly rare for a woman to be abducted from our streets, but i completely understand that, despite that, women in london and the wider public, perhaps particularly those in the area where sarah went missing, will be worried and may be feeling scared. cressida dick is right to be say that it's rare to be snatched in what may be a random attack off the streets, and it's the kind of thing we were raised as women to be frightened of, and it is quite rare. it is not rare for women to suffer violence in their homes, at work, on the streets. that is not rare. sarah everard's case has started a national conversation about women's safety. many have been sharing their experiences of feeling unsafe in public and what they do to protect themselves. women are constantly making decisions about where they go and changing their routes and avoiding certain places, doing things like carrying their keys in their hand, picking particular seats to sit on public transport. we are really aware of our surroundings and tuned into that risk. it's been called the invisible safety work of women. but many believe that a change of attitude has to come from men — a task that may prove difficult. i tried to organise a million man march in 2016 and 52 men signed up. i try, every time i do keynote speeches on the issue of male violence, some man will walk out of the room because he just can't take me challenging them. more generally, women have also spoken of their fears of sexual harassment. the extent of how often it happens has been revealed in a survey from un women uk. 97% of women between 18 and 2a said they'd been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they'd experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. later today, the labour mpjess phillips will read the names of all the women killed by men in the last year during a debate to mark international women's day. what happened to sarah everard has laid bare the everyday fears many women have of something happening to them. helena wilkinson, bbc news. we will be in the commons to hear some of that debate that elena was talking about there. the number of people waiting to start hospital treatment in england has risen to a new high. more than 4.5 million people were waiting at the end of january, the largest figure since records began in 2007. cancer treatment and routine operations are among the services particularly affected. more details from our health correspondent, sophie hutchinson. a year since the who declared a pandemic. few could have guessed the magnitude of the strain that coronavirus would place on the nhs. the latest figures lay bare of the vast number of non—covid—i9 patients who have missed out on treatment. nhs england says an unprecedented 4.6 million patients are now waiting for treatment. more than 300,000 have waited over a year, compared tojust 1,600 before the pandemic. and the number of operations has more than halved. another concern is that 8% reduction in the number of patients starting cancer treatment compared with january 2020. patients likejean robinson, who had started chemotherapy and then had it stopped because of the virus. i was really, really shocked, really upset, obviously started crying, because it is my lifeline. what they are saying to me is it's either chemotherapy, no chemotherapy, die of cancer or die of the pandemic. you know, i don't really have much of a choice, you're removing my lifeline. the figures for the backlog include the second wave injanuary which brought some parts of the nhs perilously close to break point. despite that, nhs england said it managed to treat almost double the number of non—covid patients as it had in the first wave but no—one is in any doubt about the challenge ahead. i think what we are seeing, though, is evidence of the nhs responding to that challenge in terms of carrying out more operations, more consultations, diagnostic tests, than was possible during the first wave of the pandemic. it's clear the nhs is raising its game but no—one underestimates the scale of the challenges. and while the nhs works on reducing the backlog, another big challenge is the vaccination programme. today there were calls for the 12—week wait for a second dose of the vaccine to be reviewed for cancer patients after an early small—scale study suggested the long gap could leave patients vulnerable. this data needs to be reviewed by experts and policymakers in terms of whether we need to think about bringing that second dose forward for this patient population. those are complex decisions. the scientists say, for cancer patients, social distancing and other infection prevention measures remain key until more research is carried out. sophie hutchinson, bbc news. we will talk about one further story before we turn to that debate in the house of commons. the business secretary, kwasi kwarteng, has this morning said the government "bows to nobody" in the protection and promotion of lgbt rights. his comments follow the resignation of three members of the government's lgbt+ advisory panel, amid concern it is being too slow in bringing in legislation to ban "conversion therapy", which aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity. three people have now resigned from that government advisory group. jayne ozanne was one of those who resigned after accusing ministers of creating a "hostile environment" for lgbt+ people. shejoins me now. hello, good afternoon. explain initially if you can, for those who haven't been following this, why haven't been following this, why have you resigned? what was your key complaint here? i have been considering my position for some time now stop i have been increasingly concerned about decisions government have made without engaging with the advisory panel or seeking our advice. the final straw for me was on monday evening, in an excellent debate on the need to ban conversion therapy, where mps across the house unanimously by calling on the government to act urgently. the ministerfor government to act urgently. the minister for equalities replied with a most appalling speech, which frankly showed no understanding of any of the issues that i and others have tried to talk to her about over the last few years. she has yet to meet with any survivors. but she failed to use the word ban. she used it once in the whole speech where she was talking about various prosecutions we already had. it showed she didn't understand that what we were calling for protections for victims from even going through conversion therapy, and sending out a clear message to those who want to practice it that they shouldn't. notably, she didn't talk about protecting the notably, she didn�*t talk about protecting the trans— notably, she didn't talk about protecting the trans— committee, protecting the trans— committee, protecting adults, she did not talk in anyway about helping young people who are supposedly consenting but don't have anybody they can turn to when they are told that who they are is sinful and they have to go through this horrendous practice. just in terms of what has been happening and the politics of all of this, it is striking and quite confusing, because borisjohnson has in the past used the word ban, he has talked about it and there are some countries that do ban it. if i'm right in saying, you are anxious because the equalities minister has not or will not use that word and will not commit to it, is that how you see it?— will not commit to it, is that how ou see it? . v you see it? that's right. the prime minister did _ you see it? that's right. the prime minister did use _ you see it? that's right. the prime minister did use the _ you see it? that's right. the prime minister did use the word - you see it? that's right. the prime minister did use the word ban - minister did use the word ban finally lastjuly, but ever since, over the last 1000 days we have engaged with them, they have talked about ending it. we would say that you cannot ended without banning it. we need a clear signalfor those you cannot ended without banning it. we need a clear signal for those who think they can get away with that this country actually will not allow it, that it is outlawed, and that victims can call the police and seek redress. it is not good enough to try to dodge these words and try to pretend that they are going to bring legislation when there has not been any proposals brought forward to do that. ,., , ,., , , that. the government response is that, we that. the government response is that. we are _ that. the government response is that, we are working _ that. the government response is that, we are working to _ that. the government response is that, we are working to bring - that, we are working to bring forward funds to do so shortly, to end conversion therapy. you shaking your head, and two other member is have resigned as well.— have resigned as well. absolutely. shortl is have resigned as well. absolutely. shortly is a — have resigned as well. absolutely. shortly is a message _ have resigned as well. absolutely. shortly is a message we _ have resigned as well. absolutely. shortly is a message we have - have resigned as well. absolutely. l shortly is a message we have heard for 1000 days. shortly is a message we have heard for1000 days. in shortly is a message we have heard for 1000 days. in that time, how many lives have been impacted and perhaps even lost? i went through conversion therapy, i know how much it traumatised as people. i get contacted almost daily by people of all ages who have fallen foul of it. my all ages who have fallen foul of it. my concern is, while the government continues to drag its feet, it emboldens perpetrators and allows those who want to continue to do so with impunity. this those who want to continue to do so with impunity-— those who want to continue to do so with impunity. this panel was set up in 2019, with impunity. this panel was set up in 2019. under— with impunity. this panel was set up in 2019, under theresa _ with impunity. this panel was set up in 2019, under theresa may. - with impunity. this panel was set up in 2019, under theresa may. has - in 2019, under theresa may. has there been a shift for you with the change of administration question much how much engagement was there back then, when the panel was brought together for the first time, versus where it is today? timer;r brought together for the first time, versus where it is today?— versus where it is today? they are li . ht versus where it is today? they are light years — versus where it is today? they are light years apart- _ versus where it is today? they are light years apart. when _ versus where it is today? they are light years apart. when the - versus where it is today? they are light years apart. when the panel| light years apart. when the panel was set up, it was set up in order to help implement something called the lgbt action plan and 75 action points were agreed with government, based on a survey of the lgbt community, one of the biggest surveys in the world, 108,000 people replied, stating what they would like to see the government do to help enhance their protections, to help enhance their protections, to help them in their workplace, at school, in education and health care settings. one of those action points was to ban conversion therapy. there was to ban conversion therapy. there was a determination to work on that action plan. however, when we saw the change with ministration and change of leader at the top, we have hardly met with officials, the action plan has seemingly been dropped. we tried to impress the new secretary of state without priorities, but they haven't been listened to. all the reforms we were looking at in terms of gra reform have sadly... well, they haven't turned out the way we were led to believe they worked. the gender recognition act. that lack of engagement and understanding of the lgbt community has worried me and got me to thi