outsourcing contractor carillion? it's quite difficult for ministers to go to parliament and say, oh, we've gone for a more expensive bid here, because we thought it was a better bid. outsourcing was loved by labour in power butjeremy corbyn says this crisis is a sign it has to go — we'll ask dame margaret hodge if she thinks it has much future. and this — hong kong football fans booing the chinese national anthem. has beijing stuck to its promise — made to us — to respect democracy after it took back hong kong? after 30 years, i'm not sure whether the british government still remember hong kong, and still remembers the promises that they have made. we hearfrom the new leader of the backbench tory brexiteers on whether we may be heading for a squidgy brexit. and the rise of the specialist cultural sensitivity editor. publishers are employing people just to sniff out anything in their books that someone might find offensive.

is this new front in the culture war a modern necessity, or dangerous censorship? hello. so, today, the carillion blame game. the world has not fallen in, yet, but the horror of the company carillion going bust with we now know a mere £29 million in the bank, with so many contracts in operation, so many smaller suppliers unpaid, so much unfunded pension commitment and so many workers jobs dependent on it — all while it has found the money in the recent past to handsomely reward its executives and make big dividend payouts. the government knows the optics don't look good and has asked for an accelerated investigation into the actions of the directors. jeremy corbyn thinks it makes a bigger point about trying to contract everything out. time to bring it in house, he says. but for the moment, contracts rule in the public sector — from prisons and schools,

you can also see train franchises as the same thing. some private companies make a mint. others — as carillion knows — operate on dangerously thin margins. so is it possible for contracting out to ever work well? here's helen thomas. 30,000 businesses, hundreds of millions of pounds owed. across the country, companies working on carillion‘s private sectorjobs are wondering what happens when government support ends. then, the scale of the damage from the company's dramatic collapse could become clear. but there are tough questions starting to be asked in westminster. about a third of government spending goes through external suppliers. so, has the government got a good handle on who is building roads and hospitals, or providing crucial public services? and have passed lessons about the pitfalls of dealing with private companies been learned? about £250 billion of government

spending goes through external suppliers, according to estimates from the national audit office. 136 billion of that is spending by central government departments and the nhs. but the nao notes that the government is no clear figure for the amount it spends through commercial relationships. decisions about what to outsource and how are often made within different departments. one concern is that there has not been enough central management of the whole process. open book accounting clauses in contracts give the government access to confidential information, that helps track what is happening to the taxpayer's pounds. but a survey in 2014 found only 31% of contracts have open book clauses. for only 19% of contracts have the government received the relevant data and taken steps to verify it. a 2014 report by the public accounts committee recommended open book accounting to help scrutiny,

greater transparency and better information on contracts and their performance, focus on encouraging new and smaller entrance in to boost competition, investment in developing cabinet office and departmental expertise, and, crucially, contingency plans on all contracts, should a supplier failed. a follow up by the committee chaired by meg hillier in 2016 called the pace of change disappointing. we see repeatedly the same things, failure of contract letting, failure of contract management and companies that promised more than they can deliver for the price. really, there is still a very long way for government to go. the system isn't working. there are too few large companies bidding for the contracts. they get good at bidding, but there is no guarantee that being good at bidding is good at running the service. but companies in the sector

would agree that change is needed. years of austerity and the drive to cut costs has put the sector under pressure. this chart shows operating profit margins for the uk construction sector. construction was the part of carillion‘s business that generated the most losses, and the largest contractors have been making lower margins still, argue industry bodies. ama research puts the industry—standard profit margins at 2% to 3% in construction, and maybe 3% to 5% in support services. but the reality is that those remain a target for some in a sector littered with profit warnings and restructurings. one former executive told me that margins had come under pressure across all outsourcing sectors will stop that has happened as companies have been asked to take on more risk, and, some contracts have become impossibly complicated. a less flexible client, the government had also made it harder to react as problems arose.

it is time, this person said, for a fundamental rethink. the government has been developing an increasingly sophisticated appreciation that the lowest bidder is not necessarily the best. but it is quite difficult for ministers to go to parliament and say, we have gone for a more expensive bid because we thought it was a better one, but i think maybe this instance will liven parliament to the need for government to look more intelligently and these bids. with promises of hearings and inquiries, dealings between the government and its biggest suppliers will soon be getting much more scrutiny. we did ask the government to join us tonight, but there was nobody available. but we have our own newsnight experts here to make sense of this — political editor nick watt, business editor helen thomas and our policy editor chris cook. nick, what are you hearing tonight

about where this is going? i understand that tonight the government is planning to extend the 48—hour period in which it will fund the official receiver to look at private contractors, what are known as the private sector counterparties to carillion to see whether they want to basically accept the termination of contracts, or whether they want to pay for the ongoing costs. i am hearing talk in whitehall that there have been talks with the treasury, they want to be flexible, it is taking time to go through these contracts. they want to give them more time. but this will not be indefinitely... and they won't call it a bailout? it will not be the same as the support they are providing for the official receiver. this is a contract where the government battle has no stake, they are basically helping the receivers. on other aspects of this whole thing, where is it going to go now? it will take time to work out where the pain is going to come any

supply chain, who is going to lay off people, and there will be lay—offs, and who might be taking financial hits. as we touched on earlier, greg clarke, the business secretary, has called for two investigations, one into the carillion accounts, and the reporting to europe to the profit warning injuly, and also the conduct towards its collapse, including by current and former directors. we are assuming every aspect of this will be probed. corporate governance in the company, including pay and board oversight, and there are various people around politics today promising to have people in front of committees and for them to be pretty fiery. you know, there will always be this lingering question of if the government should be more aware of what was going on along the carillion business. a rival company, into serve, launched a legal challenge in 2014 into the award of a contract by the minute job defence, £4 billion. the contract went to carillion,

and the rival said that the bids were abnormally low and could be undeliverable. whitehall insiders will be having lots of concessions about the meanings of this. a lot of them will not be agreeing withjeremy corbyn that it is the end of our outsourcing. didn't think it is the end of outsourcing. that is clear. the big thing i keep hearing about his concentration. they bring up how frustrating it is that the market is so concentrated with outsourcing. there are relatively few players of a scale large enough to take on the kind of contracts that the government likes to deliver. they also think that things are currently in hand, they think that pensions are going to be dealt with by the pension protection fund, they think public contracts will be

picked up and be ok. obviously problems with the supply chain. this isn't the sort of lehman brothers catastrophe. the problem for them in the short—term is, actually, if you look at the serco share price, it has gone up. a big rival? yes, because things are easier for them, there is one fewer bidder in the market. are they seeing big changes to outsourcing now? not in the short—term, not under this government. the big thing worth remembering is that there are reasons that people outsource which are not just about chiselling at the cost. do you have the strategic capacity to do something? the civil service does not want to have a senior manager in charge of doing hr for the people that maintain own buildings. they are not interested in that and they cannot foresee doing that. thanks, all of you,

thank you very much. now i'm joined by dame margaret hodge, the labour mp who chaired the public accounts committee in 2014 when it produced a report on outsourcing public services to the private sector. do you think the collapse of carillion is the sign of a system working, that a company that perhaps was not very well run has gone out of business? that happens. or is it a sign of systemic failure? i think it is more of a sign of systemic failure. we looked at this through four years back, and i don't think what has changed. according to meg hillier, it hasn't. we found a number of things, actually what the government was doing in trying to create a market, it was almost destroying the market because it was killing off a lot of smaller suppliers of public services and allowing these very big oligarch companies, that were very good at winning contracts, to run public services that they were less good at. we also found there isn't enough transparency. you can sort this out. if you want to play in the public sector market and you are using taxpayer's money, you ought to be open. so you shouldn't be able to hide

behind commercial confidentiality. the government can say we will make it open? and they should. when we talked to four of the big players, they were willing to do that. the other thing is the civil service capability. we all know that it's really isn't there. it is unrealistic to think we are going to get rid of outsourcing. over half of the service is now provided by the tax payer, this is not, you know, tax relief or benefits, pensions, but the services, over half of them are provided by private providers. you cannot shift back. your leader, jeremy corbyn, has used the word fleecing the public, because the companies take big profits out of the delivery of public services. it honestly doesn't sound like they are taking very big profits. carillion was struggling to survive. which is the problem? the margins are or too fat? there is too much ideology, money conservatives, there is an ideology.

they believe that the private sector can deliver more efficiency. chris grayling is probably the main proponent of this, and you have seen a disaster in the probation service. on the left, there is an ideology that it has to be the public sector that always delivers, and that becomes to produce a lead. we need to think of the user, the citizen and patient. it is much easier for me to go and get my flu jab from boots. is that outsourcing or privatisation? it works for me as a citizen. we ought to think about how we can construct these services. there is a big point here, outsourcing is linked to the big economy. they, respect for companies push something like cleaning or catering into agencies, they don't give pensions, they maybe have shorter contracts with staff. the map —— gig economy is the result. you don't think that has gone too far? the marketisation of

all aspects of life? i think i do. we have to make this work, because there is too much delivered through private companies. you have to have the transparency and create a market. that means a government backed or changing the way tenders. if you are a small company, there was no way you can go to that expensive process they have to skill of the civil service and then you have to to have ethical standards by behalf on these big companies. that involves things like making sure they employ people properly, we ought to be regulated, codes of practice and pay taxes, all of that sort of thing. don't lie about how they are delivering the services. and i think if we did that, outsourcing could work better. we've also got to move from the ideology to apply that bad, public good, and move to putting the citizen at the heart of delivering services. margaret hodge, thank you. before britain exited hong kong two decades ago, it said it would be keeping a close

watch on its former colony once it was to be in chinese hands. we had signed a joint declaration with china, that said for 50 years, the freedoms hong kong enjoyed would be preserved. john major said that in the event of any breach of that agreement by the chinese, britain would pursue every legal and other avenue available to challenge it. well, there are some who look at hong kong now, and observe chinese restrictions on democracy and free speech slowly creeping in. tonight, student pro—democracy leaders there — including joshua wong — are awaiting the outcome of their final appeal to overturn prison sentences for their roles in sparking 2014's massive pro—democracy protests. should britain step into the breach? danny vincent reports from hong kong. every day 35,000 people take the ferry to kowloon. and hong kongers enjoy rights unique in china. thanks to the terms of 1997 handover, beijing can't interfere

in internal matters. there's even a mini—constitution — known as the "basic law". but many worry that beijing is dramatically undermining that agreement, that democracy activists are being locked up and that britain is looking the other way. we're on our way to a new development — the railway station that will be the new terminus for a high speed railway link connecting hong kong to mainland china. it's raising serious concerns over hong kong's autonomy, because inside this station chinese national law will apply, not hong kong law. the basic law states that mainland laws can not be enforced in hong kong. but when the new kowloon rail terminus opens later this year, chinese customs and immigration officials will operate inside the station, with powers

of search and arrest. tanya chan has long fought to defend the basic law. she argues this is the clearest violation yet of the territory's legal independence. this is absolutely the worst precedent, the worst example so far. we are actually putting chinese officials in the heart of hong kong and now this is the very first time that in hong kong we are going to apply national law. thousands demonstrated against the plan on new year's day. the basic law is a list of rights — including freedom of speech, of the press, freedom to demonstrate. they fear the plans for the station are the thin end of the wedge and britain is not standing by its international obligations to protect their rights. i'm not sure whether the british government still remembers hong kong and still remembers the promises

that they have made. the british government definitely has a role to play and definitely can make their comments and raise their concerns. we are waiting for them. three years, ago the "umbrella" protest brought tens of thousands on to the streets over beijing's control of the candidates for hong kong's leadership. they were led by students likejoshua wong, but the protests failed and beijing still controls who leads hong kong. so the students started their own party to campaign for more democracy. joshua wong and fellow activist nathan law believe the court system is no longer independent and it's been used against them. they have both been imprisoned for public order offences. now, they're out on bail, but a hearing tomorrow could put joshua back in prison.

and he said he was interrogated naked when he was last in custody. as a young prisoner, i served my prison sentence inside the highest security prison in hong kong. at the same time, they even urged me to take off all my clothes when i need to answer the question. they just treat us. .. like a dog instead of a human. there are suspicions that triad gang members are paid to intimidate activists. joshua says prison inmates told him that they had been told to attack the umbrella movement. when i was serving the prison sentence injail, i met a lot of inmates who claimed they had background, come from the gangster and they receive money to attack or physically assault us duringumbrella movement. joshua doesn't know who paid them. the prison authorities deny mistreatment and we were unable to speak to prisoners to confirm

the claim of intimidation. those who fight for hong kong's legal independence say they're also fighting for its cultural identity. i am meeting someone who may well be at the heart of the next flashpoint. hong kong football fans have been booing the chinese national anthem when it's played at home games. now, beijing has told hong kong to criminalise the jeering. the national anthem is not representation of hong kong... jack and hundreds like him will be breaking the law if they carry on booing. why do football fans boo the chinese national anthem? we don't think that we are chinese, we are hong kong. the difference is that hong kong has democracy and also we have the right of speech and right of demonstration in hong kong. this was at a game between hong kong and bahrain. fans could be imprisoned

for three years. new laws could be applied retrospectively. critics say this contradicts the basic law in terms of freedom of expression, applying chinese national law and applying it retrospectively. but jack is defiant. can they stop you disrespecting the chinese national anthem? no. at west kowloon magistrates court, nine more activists face public order charges. all were key figure in the umbrella protests. tanya chan, who opposes chinese law in the new rail station, is one of the defendants. in fact, over 50 democracy activists and elected law—makers currently face court cases that could bar them from office or see them locked up. this isjust one hearing in a series of legal moves against the activists. professors, student leaders and local politicians are all going through the courts. and all of them could

face prison time. this case is seen as a clear warning to every level of hong kong's democracy camp — the umbrella movement must be crushed. people who lead protests against beijing must be prepared to face jail and, by using the courts, the tool is the legal system itself. we are defending our right to have demonstrations, freedom of expression and very important is our right to have our own choice of government. but there is substantial opposition to the democracy activists in hong kong. pro—beijing candidates here command the largest number of seats in the partly—elected local chamber. regina ip is is a strong supporter of mainland china. she says those who argue the basic law is under threat are being legal fundamentalists. in a free society like hong kong, with a wide range of different

opinions, we have among our citizenry people who you might call "fundamentalists" you know, legal and judicial fundamentalists, who believe in sticking to every letter of the basic law. many pan—democrats in hong kong feel that the government and perhaps beijing are targeting them and carrying out somewhat of a political persecution. what do you say to that? we have no political offences in hong kong. if people are charged for disrupting public order, incitement or disturbance, that is all based on common law and common law principles and the statutory laws that we inherited from britain. i think these accusations are totally ungrounded. hong kong's autonomy was enshrined in the basic law, but the criminalisation of the umbrella protesters and others who challenge beijing does raise questions about the rule of law in the territory.

it also raises questions about britain's commitment to the people and the system it once pledged to protect. danny vincent there. we did try to speak to the chinese government and the the british government about this story, but nobody was available from either. the eu has been sounding both tough and tender as regards brexit today. in a speech to the parliament today, the president of the council donald tusk did the tender bit. david davis said if a democracy cannot change its mind it ceases to be a democracy. we here on the continent haven't had a change of heart. our hearts are still open to you. forget the idea that we will set our own fishing quotas. the draft instructions appear to be

quite hard line on what the transition will look like. it seems to bea transition will look like. it seems to be a race to the top for the member states. each state is piling their own issues into the negotiations. nick watt is back us with. why did michel barnier come out with that our heart is open? it was donald tusk and sometimes you need to set his words to music. but what he said was music to the ears of a small number of remain supporters who are seeking to reverse brexit. what they need is brussels to say, we would like to have you back and the reason why they need that is by the time of the autumn when we will have this deal, they want the british people to see

two options — the new deal or the existing membership and they're talking about ways of defeating brexit. is this going to happen? i was speaking to a member of the cabinet who supported remain, who said you couldn't see it happening unless public opinion shifted dramatically. 60—40 in favour of remain, it not really shifting. one of the most most vocal supporters of brexit has been the tory backbencher jacob rees mogg. he was rewarded for his work in this area today by being appointed chairman of the party's influential european research group — a sort of internal lobbying grouping which works to push for a hard brexit. i spoke to him earlier and i put it to him that despite president tusk‘s comments earlier, the eu

was preparing to be pretty tough and uncompromising for the next round of negotiations. well, i'm all in favour of being tough and uncompromising. i want a proper brexit. i want us to leave the european union, heart, souland mind. i don't want us to have the sort of brexit where, because they've given us all sorts of baubles, we have stayed in bits that deny us freedom. the key thing is coming up with the trade negotiation now. it is so important that we maintain the flexibility to do deals with other countries, that were not so bound in by the eu's requirements that we can't get the benefits of cheaper food, clothing and footwear, that will flow from setting up our own trading relationships. so, their being tough may actually push us into a clearer brexit. could we talk about the transition? because the government is pretty keen on a transition, or implementation. the eu, all signs are, from the draft negotiating positions, they're going to be really tough. well, i think the language is really important.

is it an implimentation period which the government is asking for, or is it a transition? if it is an implimentation period, we've left the eu and we are implementing the consequences. that is to say it might take time to put in new immigration queues at heathrow. and, until that's done, we're implementing. if it's a transition, we are in fact still in the european union. if they set our fishing quotas, if new laws coming in from the eu affect the uk, if the ecj still hasjurisdiction, it would be untrue to say we have left. it would be an extension of our membership. if that is what the government should want to do, it should do it under the terms of article 50 and be honest about it. it would be a deceit to have a transition that kept us in the eu for two years by default. and you wouldn't necessarily be against extending our membership for two years to get everything sorted out, but you want honesty about that if that is what the plan is? because the eu, by the way, is in no doubt at all, it is an extension of membership by another name. i would be opposed to extension of membership. an implimentation period is fine.

a transition period is not. the prime minister, who i fully support, has been very careful to say implementation period... but you're just using the language that you know is going to appeal to you, business just hears transitional arrangement. they don't make any distinct at all. no, it's very important to focus on the details. the prime minister is a person of great precision. she doesn't use language loosely. and she has invariably said implimentation, and she has said that we will leave on the 29th of march 2019, and i fully support her position. right. i wonder how you interpreted nigel farage‘s comments on a second referendum. because that, again, was seen by some as a kind of sign of nervousness on the brexit side that it's just slipping away, potentially. i don't know why mr farage decide to say he wanted a second referendum. one of the interesting things about polling on this at the moment is that people, they broadly haven't changed from where they were in the referendum, but on the question do you want another referendum, everyone in this country is brenda from bristol. there is no appetite for another referendum. as it happens, i think

there would be real anger if there was a second one, because we're not one of those smaller eu states, that when we vote to give the answer that the eu doesn't like get told to vote again and again until we do as we're told, like good little boys. therefore i think, if there was a second referendum, you would see considerable popular discontent. you're now running the erg, the european reform group. this is about 60 tory mps, on the more brexit side, the brexit side, let's say. are you going to hold the government's feet to the fire, on all the things we've been talking about? the government's determination to go for a clear brexit, rather than a slightly messier, softer one? the erg is a group of like—minded members of parliament and it provides research to help us with work on european issues. i'm very keen to help the government achieve the policy that it set out,

and the prime minister set out particularly in the lancaster house speech, and encourage a vigorous implimentation of that policy. the government has my personal, complete support in doing that. jacob rees—mogg, thanks very much. thank you very much. pretty well anyone who writes anything these days knows how easy it is to be unwittingly — or wittingly — offensive. in the era of identity politics, it's not hard to trigger a reaction that says you are guilty of insensitivity to one group or another. now, while some writers thrive on controversy, many want to avoid it, and even if they don't their publishers might. so enter the idea of sensitivity readers. people employed to look at a book ahead of publication, to advise on potential mis—steps within. as always, the us leads in these trends and the american press has become quite pre—occupied by the debate as to whether sensitivity readers improve books, or censor free speech and indulge a noisy twitter mob too keen to take umbrage at anything. here's stephen smith on how it works. # i'm mad about good books

# can't get my fill...# budding authors have always been told, write about what you know. that seems particularly canny advice now, when an imaginative leap into unfamiliar territory can lend a writer in trouble for misrepresentation or stereotyping. some readers and critics are alert to any real or perceived failures of authenticity in areas including race, gender and sexuality. so, publishers and writers are turning to so—called sensitivity readers, who scan texts before publication on the lookout for any missteps that mightjar or give offence. one author of books for young adults told us she used sensitivity readers when she created characters with deafness and selective mutism. i have a friend who is deaf, and i also knew somebody who was a british sign language interpreter.

so, they both individually read it and came back to me with their notes. and then we discussed it together. it was to make sure that i was representing, in this case, deafness, as authentically and truthfully as possible, to make sure that, for people who have experience of it, that they would be able to recognise the way i was portraying it. but is there a danger that writers and readers could become oversensitive? that difficult material will simply be avoided for fear of giving offence? and sensitivities vary, of course. even just about everyone‘s favourite boy wizard managed to upset some over so—called occult themes in the harry potter books. right now, young adult readers seemed to be more alive to issues of sensitivity than the general book buying public. yes, i think very much so. especially with social media allowing people to have much more of a voice than maybe

they would have done before, and in larger numbers. i think it's definitely something that i, as a ya author, and friends of mine who are ya authors are very aware of. # sitting and reading # enjoying the breathing ofyou...# as more authors take advice from sensitivity readers, some bookworms may be in for a more stress—free experience. but will that really make for a happy ending? joining me now to discuss is author laura moriarty, who worked with sensitivity readers on her novel ‘american heart'. she's in kansas. and with me in the studio is publisher sharmaine lovegrove, who heads up london—based dialogue books. good evening to you. laura, you had a curious experience. you worked with sensitivity readers, and it was a book with muslim themes. and there was still quite a lot of anger at your book anyway? as i was writing the book,

i actually instinctively did it on my own, i asked a muslim american friend to read the book and i asked some persian american friends to read the books. i even sent the manuscript to a friend of a friend in iran, and she sent her thoughts. i wanted to make sure it was authentic and accurate, my depictions of muslims and iranians. once i sold the book to harper, they also hired sensitivity readers to go through the book again. i think what is interesting is, for me, i didn't mind when harper said they wanted sensitivity readers to go over it again. if i think of it as accuracy readers, if i think about someone who has an experience that can look at my work and make sure i am being accurate and thoughtful about how i depict groups. that is fine with me. i think the biggest misperception

is that the writers are forced to take every suggestion that the sensitivity reader makes. that wasn't the case for me. i just want to get... basically, you agreed the book with the sensitivity readers and the publisher, then was a lot of upset. the saviour of the book of the muslims was a white woman, and it was more her story than theirs? right, there were people that were upset, when the description of the book came out, that the narrator and the protagonist is a white non—muslim girl. she is very bigoted at the beginning. she has grown up in the extremely xenophobic united states. she overcomes her prejudice by meeting a muslim. what did you make of that story, the book through the sensitivity reader and then there was outrage? the question overall is why we need

sensitivity writers? who is writing the stories? it seems like a formidable amount of people that were involved to make sure that something was correct. if we have the people employed in the first place in publishing houses, it seems like it is from the confidence from the publishers as where it has gone wrong. i also question the idea of anyone being able to write anything from any perspective, the idea of a white saviour with a muslim, that is complicated. there are issues there. the point is that muslims would not have one view

on that, would they? you don't necessarily want the noisiest or the most offended people to dictate what is published? or is that not where you end up? absolutely. we have to remember that ya publishing is particularly sensitive. young adults? yes, because the issues are front—loaded. this is about reading for the next generation. we absolutely have to get this right. we have to get the reading right, we have to get the writing right. we have to listen to the voices that are coming through and complaining. actually, we have to to think who is writing our stories, who are our children going to be listing to? is there a problem, forget sensitivity readers, is the problem basically that too many publishers and writers are scared of offending people? well, i think that is very much the case right now. i think there is an idea that you could possibly hire enough sensitivity readers where nobody would be offended, and that is of course impossible. with my book, i had my readers, the publishing house hired more,

and people were still incredibly offended. as you say, there are different sensitivities, even within marginalised communities. you're never going to please everybody and make everybody happy. i think the focus needs to be an authenticity. i would disagree, and i think that while i agree that we would like to see more diversity in publishing and writers, i don't think that there should be such strict limits on who should tell such stories. i think we can imagine each other‘s lives. my first novel was about a girl growing up on welfare, and she was white, and nobody ever asked me anything about it. do you have any worries about this being a sort of shutting down, rather than opening up. what we really want to see us diversity in publishing, diversity in terms of characters, and confidence from the writers. it has to be fair and it has to be pronounced. we need to have that in order

for the next generation. thank you both very much indeed. that's it for tonight. but following last week's row when donald trump was accused of favouring immigrants from norway over those from haiti, people have been asking just what is it about the liberal norwegians that the president actually likes. now a new theory has emerged online, that norway is in fact helping mr trump to maintain his most closely guarded cover—up. judge for yourself. good night. donald trump: ricardo sanchez, on his spanish drivetime radio show in los angeles, has taken to calling donaldj trump "the man of the toupee". this was on the front page of the new york times. i don't wear a toupee.

it's my hair! hello there. it's been a significantly cold, wintry day across parts of the country, particularly scotland and northern ireland, where we've had some pretty impressive snow accumulations from frequent showers merging together, longer spells of snow stopping northern ireland and parts of scotla nd northern ireland and parts of scotland have been battered, almost wiped out in south lanarkshire and those showers will continue to strea m those showers will continue to stream through across scotland and northern ireland, so the wet, met office have a warning for snow and ice, conditions will be treacherous through the overnight period into

tomorrow morning as well. frequent showers, add on the strong winds, snow and blizzard conditions in scotla nd snow and blizzard conditions in scotland and northern ireland and tending into northern england and gale force winds in the south—east, could see coastal flooding there because tides are high. a cold night to come which is why we have the warning, but fewer showers across the south—east. for tomorrow, warning, but fewer showers across the south—east. fortomorrow, it's going to be a cold day again, another windy one, wintry showers will be in the forecast but increasing sunshine through the afternoon so it is an improving picture. that's not before we get through the mooring period, which will be pretty treacherous in parts of scotland, northern ireland, the far north of england. watch out for blizzard conditions, icy stretches and strong gale force winds. fewer showers further south, a few running through the cheshire gap towards the midlands, snow over the pennines and wintryness and showers across the moors of the south—west but a good portion of the midlands, the south—east, will start dry, cold and bright. through the day those

showers become more can find towards scotla nd showers become more can find towards scotland and northern ireland, the far north of england, whereas for much of england and wales, fine afternoon, increasing amount of sunshine with temperatures of five to eight degrees. a cold one, wrap up to eight degrees. a cold one, wrap up when you go out because the cold wind will increase the chill factor. as we had on the wednesday night we look to the west and this next area of low pressure, this one means business, bringing wet and windy weather, severe gales possible in england and wales with a band of heavy rain but the northern front could bring heavy snow to northern ireland, central and southern scotla nd ireland, central and southern scotland and northern england but the whole thing will move out quickly on thursday morning. although there could be some disruption early on thursday it's a vastly improving picture through the day, plenty of sunny spells around, most showers in the north and west, snow on the hills and it will feel cold if you factor in the wind. watch out for the snow and ice tonight and that disruptive weather potentially for wednesday night and

thursday morning. this is newsday. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: foreign ministers from 20 countries send a clear message they want to intensify pressure on north korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. us media reports that donald trump's former chief strategist steve bannon has been ordered to testify before a grand jury over alleged russian collusion in the presidential election. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: a couple in california are charged with torture and child endangerment after their 13 children were allegedly held captive in the family home. and it's uphill all the way — we hearfrom the indian skier making history on the slopes. live from our studios in singapore and london, this