this is bbc news. the headlines at 11pm: police in germany clash with protesters as world leaders gather in hamburg ahead of the 620 summit. german chancellor angela merkel met donald trump as he arrived for the summit. they discussed north korea and the conflict in eastern ukraine. fragile and precarious: inspectors warn that a quarter of social care services for adults in england are failing on safety grounds. a year after his report on the iraq war, sirjohn chilcot says tony blair wasn't "straight with the country" about his decisions. and on newsnight, the head of the cbi joins us to defend her vision of a brexit so soft that it could almost be called "remaining". good evening and welcome to bbc news.

police and protestors have clashed in germany tonight as world leaders gather there ahead of tomorrow's g20 summit. president trump flew into hamburg after a visit to poland, where he used his first major speech in europe to warn that the very survival of the west is at risk. addressing a large crowd in warsaw, mr trump drew on poland's example of fighting nazi and communist oppression. he challenged europe to defend western civilisation against islamist terrorism, extremism and also against government bureaucracy. from hamburg, here's our north america editor, jon sopel. the famous port of hamburg tonight disembarkation point for anarchists,

anti— capitalists, anti— globalisation protesters and the leaders of the world's 20 richest nations. protesters threw stones and fireworks, met by police water cannon. no such hostility when the president ventured out in warsaw this morning. not everywhere in europe that they chant donald trump's name so loudly or so approvingly. but with its populist anti—immigration government, this was politically the ideal place to come. and by dint of poland's history and geography, the perfect location too to deliver a message about the challenges facing the west. the fundamental question of oui’ west. the fundamental question of ourtime is west. the fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect

oui’ respect for our citizens to protect our borders? do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy mm who would subvert and destroy it7m the 1940s but the rest was nazism. this sculpture commemorating those who died in the warsaw uprising —— the threat. the backdrop on which the threat. the backdrop on which the president delivered his speech. today he identified the threat as islamic extremism, but he had another target in his sights too. we urge russia to cease its destabilising activities in ukraine and elsewhere and in support —— its support for hostile regimes, including syria and iran, and instead support the common —— with a community of responsible nations in oui’ community of responsible nations in ourfight against community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defence of civilisation itself. that is the most outspoken he has been about russia and it comes on the eve of his eagerly anticipated

first meeting with vladimir putin. but on moscow's interference on the us president election, something said by some as a fact, the president again equivocated. said by some as a fact, the president again equivocatedm could very well have been russia, but it could have been other countries and i would be specific. but i think a lot of people interfere. it's been happening for a long—time, for many years. interfere. it's been happening for a long-time, for many years. but the most immediate and living threat is north korea, testing and intercontinental ballistic missile. something that is likely to dominate the 620. as far as north korea is concerned, i don't know, we will see what happened. i do like to talk about what i have plans, but there are some pretty severe things we are thinking about, that doesn't mean we will do them. i don't already lines. 0ne will do them. i don't already lines. one other important thing that came out of this trip to warsaw was a commitment to nato's article five, that an attack on one nation is an attack on all. we welcome

announcement for all those anxious countries on russia's western border. then on to germany and what promises to be at testing summit, with disagreements over trade, immigration and climate change. angela merkel and donald trump met this evening and they disagree on much of this. the joint communique will be a test of the bureaucrat‘s drafting skills. finding the right care provision for the elderly has become a game of "russian roulette" according to the charity age uk. it follows a new report from the care quality commission which found that a quarter of services in england are failing on safety. one million vulnerable people use care services in england. about half a million get care in their own homes. and 200,000 are looked after in nursing homes. inspectors in england identified a lack of staff and errors over drugs as some of the most serious problems. 0ur social affairs correspondent alison holt reports. mum, can you open your eyes just a little? bernie jarvis carefully

gives her 78—year—old mother lunch. betty, who has dementia, is now back with family, but she used to live in a nursing home. the family put in a secret camera because they had concerns, and it quickly picked up the sort of poor care highlighted in today's report. it showed a care worker pushing the chair betty is slumped in sharply towards a desk. later, when betty objects to her top being changed, her head is slammed back into the chair. i don't want to. last february in court, the care worker accepted her actions were reckless rather than intentional. she was given a 12 month community order. query everything. don't let them dismiss you. because they did with us for about eight months. i wish we would have pursued it a lot quicker than we did. because mum, you know, mum probably wouldn't have suffered the way she did.

today's report by inspectors says most care in england is good. even so, a quarter of all services, including home care and residential homes, failed on safety. and 37% of nursing homes weren't safe enough. also when reinspected, quality of care in some good homes had deteriorated. there's good care out there, we can be confident about that, but what it's saying is that some of that care is fragile and it's precarious, and we've really got to concentrate on making sure we shine the spotlight on poor care. at a time when the number of older people and younger disabled adults is increasing, this report raises serious concerns about the quality of care that some are getting. but those at the sharp end say it also underlines the importance of rapid action to sort out how we pay for and organise care in the long term. for individual older people and their families, they're facing a degree of russian roulette. will they get good care? will they get any care?

will it be affordable? will the carer turn up? will the care in a care home be safe? will there be a nurse in the nursing home? these are such fundamental questions, and it's unfair to expect older people to be facing them at the most vulnerable time of their lives. this home in south london is rated outstanding. jane ashcroft heads the not—for—profit organisation that runs it. they've done research which suggests a quarter of people still think the state will pay for their care, which she says shows the need for a proper debate now. if we're still talking about this in three years, that will be a disaster for people looking for services, living and working in services. we have to recognise this is a crucial issue and move with some pace. the government says poor care is completely unacceptable and that as well as putting in more money, it will be consulting on how to place social care on a more secure footing for the future. but the question for many is how quickly will that happen?

alison holt, bbc news. the controversy surrounding the iraq war, then and now, mainly revolves around tony blair's role in taking britain into battle. today, sirjohn chilcot, the man who led the inquiry about the war, has poured fuel on the argument. speaking exclusively to the bbc on the first anniversary of his report, he said that mr blair was not straight with the public when he argued so forcefully and emotionally for intervention. mr blair's office has insisted that five separate reports, including the chilcot inquiry, have found that there was no falsifying of the intelligence. he spoke to our political editor laura kuenssberg. do you feel the politicians you dealt with were as straight with you as they ought to have been?” dealt with were as straight with you as they ought to have been? i think i would need to distinguish. they adopted different approaches. i have

to name names here because these we re to name names here because these were public sessions. tony blair is a lwa ys were public sessions. tony blair is always an advocate. he makes the most as —— persuasive case we can, not departing from the truth, but persuasion is everything. do you believe that tony blair was as straight with you and the public as he ought to have been? can i slightly reword that to say i think any prime minister taking a country to war has got to be straight with the nation and carry it as far as possible with him or her? i don't believe that was the case in the iraq instance. do you feel we gave you the fullest version of events?” think it gave what was... i hesitate to say this, rather, but i think from his perspective at that point emotionally truthful and i think

that came out also in his press conference after the launch statement. i think he was on the really great emotional pressure during those sessions, far more than the committee were, and he was suffering. he was deeply engaged. in that state of mind and mood, you fall back on your instinctive skills of reactions, i think. fall back on your instinctive skills of reactions, ithink. but fall back on your instinctive skills of reactions, i think. but he was relying, you suggest, therefore on emotion, not fact. both. that was john chilcot talking to laura kuenssberg. the government has ordered new, la rger—scale fire safety tests on cladding and insulation from tower blocks. until now, tests have been carried out only on the plastic core of panels similar to those at grenfell tower in west london. the new tests will involve cladding being fitted to a 9m high demonstration wall before being exposed to fire. 0ur correspondent tom symonds has been giving me more details. we've been reporting over the last

few weeks that about 190 samples of cladding sent in by council building managers around the country have been given this quite specific test, of the plastic bit in the middle of the cladding, if you like the filling in the aluminium sandwich, has been taken out and exposed to fire, and it's been found wanting. now this new test that we can see here is what the government is now proposing, very different. this is actually simulating a very similar situation to what is believed to be the cause of the grenfell tower fire, so that opening there could be perhaps be the window that it's thought the flames came through from a fridge fire, and the test is to see whether notjust the material in the cladding can withstand fire, because we know from these tests that it doesn't, but whether the whole system, so that's the cladding, the insulation behind it, fire breaks that might be around the section of cladding. they're going to build all of that on a wall a bit like that one and test it, to see

what the result is going to be. i think the reason they've got to do this is that they're not sure that the cladding that is up on buildings around the country is safe in that sort of situation. is there a thought then that the initial tests were almost too tough, and sort of unrealistic? it's not so much that, because i think they wanted to be sure that this plastic inner core of the cladding, again, the sandwich filling, that that is, as they thought it would be, quite flammable. but actually, the building regulations are complicated and they allows you to use a material like that, as long as you can show, using perhaps that bigger study, that it is safe to be used. that might involve, for example, using a certain amount of it, perhaps a bit less, or perhaps using these fire barriers that are around the sections of cladding that prevent the flames spreading. so i think that is what is at the heart of this. but, of course, these sorts of tests are the sort of tests you had hoped had been carried out before cladding was fitted to buildings. i think there is a growing suspicion that in many cases, if the test has been done,

it has been done in the past, and, if you like, desktop studies have been written up that simply refer to a previous test, without really serious testing of proposed designs, and that is at the heart of this current row, controversy that surround our building regulations in the wake of that terrible fire. now it's time for newsnight with james o'brien. i take pride in the words "ich bin ein berliner". mr gorbachev, tear down this wall. the fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. the president says the west may not survive. is he right, or is he part of the problem? i think the large english speaking democracies, britain, and the united states,

are really moving rapidly in the wrong direction. we'll discuss how the alliance can weather these storms. also tonight, for some remainers, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die. the head of the cbi will make the case for a brexit so soft, it might almost be called remain. and just how close is artificial intelligence? it's literally in the past year we went from a place where it would get it right about 80% of the time to a point where now it's actually achieved human parity and speech recognition. it's actually achieved human parity in speech recognition. something may have been lost in translation but donald trump