if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas. the home secretary is forced to apologise for putting policy before people, as thousands from the windrush generation come forward with stories of humiliation and cruelty. we'll ask how long the government has known this policy was wrong and why nothing changed. "the right thing to do", declares the prime minister as she brings mps into the debate on air strikes over syria. do they agree with her? we ask whether she was right to put urgent action before democracy. also tonight... look at what was happening last night in sweden. sweden? who would believe this, sweden! sweden struggles with a grenade problem. we ask what the effects are of its open door immigration policy. the grenade exploded at the fourth lamp post over there. and he was killed? yes, he was killed. a grenade attack in sweden, that seems very unusual? it's not unusual unfortunately, but it's here now. good evening.

recent treatment of many of those from the windrush generation has, by any standards, been cruel and humiliating. but in angry scenes in parliament today, some critics suggested the policy is only in keeping with the government's self—proclaimed "hostile environment" on immigration. amongst them was the tottenham mp david lammy — who nodded to the language of the far right he believed had made its way into government thinking, before calling on the prime minister to recognise the company she was keeping and the effect it was having on her policies. the home secretary came to the house to apologise, after testa ment after testa ment had been heard from those who came to britain decades ago at the invitation of the british government, only now to be treated now like foreigners, imposters, in their own home. here's our political editor nick watt. i feel like an alien. what's that word they use

for people on the run — a fugitive. i felt a tap on the shoulder with somebody saying to me, you don't belong here. i don't know why they did it, they must know why they did what they did to cause people harm and total upheaval. michael braithwaite came here as a 9—year—old boy, as a proud member of the windrush generation. he went to school here and has worked and paid taxes here all his life. he is british. but when the school he worked at looked to renew some paperwork, questions were asked that he couldn't answer. official letters were dispatched and suddenly he was being treated as an outsider in his own country. the legal status of the windrush generation has come to the fore on the eve of the commonwealth heads of government meeting after downing street initially declined to meet caribbean leaders

to discuss their plight. theresa may hastily reversed that decision, but this did little to quell the anger. the government, the political class, some in my own party have played a dog whistle on immigration that has led us to this point. and that is why i said, if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas. this was a rhetoric, that when i was growing up, was largely confined to the extreme of one political party or indeed to the bnp. it is now a discourse at large and it is the natural consequence. it is now a discourse writ large and this is the natural consequence. the home secretary offered a heartfelt apology for what she described as the appalling treatment of those involved, and then this... i am concerned the home office is, has become too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of the individual. and this is about...

this is about individuals. and we have seen the individual stories. they have been, some of them, terrible to hear and that is why i have acted. that is why i have put a very clear time limit on the amount of time it will take to correct this. that is why i am so committed to ensuring there is no cost involved. the decision by amber rudd to raise questions by her own department over an issue relating to theresa may's time in the job shows that cold fury amongst some ministers over the treatment of the windrush generation. these ministers hope that by showing sensitivity to those caught up in bureaucracy, they will be able to take the heat out of this most sensitive of issues. but one senior tory who has sat in government with theresa may when she pledged to create a hostile environment for illegal migrants,

told me the home office tightened things up and this is where you end up. the windrush generation were granted settled status if they had arrived in the uk before 1973. official papers appeared not to matter until 1996, when employers were required to check the immigration record of employees. this was likely and forced. a decade later, labour did enforce these rules with large fines, but checks were not widespread. in 2012, theresa may and announced a hostile environment for illegal migrants. landlords and providers of public services had to check papers. before we start lambasting ministers for responding to what has been high levels of public disquiet, we have to take that into account. officials should look sensibly at the story which a person gives them.

if it is clearly obvious they have been in this country for many years and probably came in as children at the time of the empire windrush generation came here, that should ring alarm bells that they are dealing with somebody who would be able to regularise their position in this country without any difficulty and would be entitled to a british passport. and they should be very careful about not acting towards them in a way which undermines their undoubted rights. we landed and that is the first time i have had the feeling of cold air on my legs. it was quite weird. for michael braithwaite and his family, there is a happy ending. he is days away from securing the necessary paperwork. for many, the heartache continues. we did ask someone from the government to join us on the

programme tonight but there wasn't anyone available. in a statement, the home office said its new taskforce would work across government to help individuals identify and and gather evidence to prove their rights to remain in britain. i'm joined now by sonia williams, she came to britain from barbados in 1975 aged 13 but started having problems in 2014 when she was told she didn't have indefinite leave to remain. she has since had her driving licence withdrawn. also with me is trevor phillips, the former chair of the equalities and human rights commission. his family is originally from guyana. and the tory mp chris philp is in westminster. nice to have you all. sonia, if i can start with you, for four years yeah. i cannot drive, i cannot work, i cannot claim benefits, i cannot do i cannot drive, i cannot work, i cannot claim benefits, i cannot do anything. they took away your license and is yourjob as well? yes.

what happened ? they came to me in early 2014 and asked me for id, they needed to update their records and i had been there for eight years. six months later, they said we don't need you any more, we are making you redundant. i still didn't think anything about it until they took away my driving licence in 2016. i started to put it together and i thought, this is all connected. they're saying i am an illegal immigrant. technically, you came in 1975, just after the cut—off. do you think that is why they are acting like this? i didn't know about any cut—off, i didn't know. you have the paperwork? i don't know, i came as a minor tojoin my mum, dad, sister and my brother. they were born here, my mum was a citizen and my dad had the right to remain. ijust presumed i had all that because i was leaving barbados to come and live with my family, notjust coming on holiday. you heard the home secretary,

amber rudd, apologising saying she thought policy had got in the wake of people, what is your response tonight? i don't accept the apology because they have been giving me the run around and nobody is telling me where to go or what to do. they are just talking about money that i haven't got. i cannot claim benefits, i am not working so where will i get the money to apply for these things they are asking for? what do you think the damage is that has been done to you personally? i don't know, numb. sometimes i want to give up. crying, stressed. tonight, the home office has been in touch and we have explained your case to them and they said they will be in touch with you tomorrow. your reaction to that? i sent the necessary paperwork and you wrote me back and told me i didn't have the right paperwork. now all of a sudden tonight, i have the right for them to give me a phone call.

let me read this out. your no time limit biometric permit application has been withdrawn as you never held indefinitely leave to remain. how did they come to that conclusion? let's ask chris felt, can you tell sonia and others like her how the government can compensate her for what she has been through? the experience sonia has had and others like her, is acceptable. —— is unacceptable. as a child of the windrush generation, arrivals in the uk, she should have the right to remain and this announcement means she can have and others in her position, can have a fast—track indefinite leave to remain and associated paperwork. hang on a second, you are talking about she should have the right to remain. you have just heard from a woman who had herjob taken away from her and her driving licence. the very least she gets is the right to remain, what about the compensation?

that wasn't discussed in the commons today. should it be? that can be looked at but we need to get these cases fixed quickly. i had a case similar of a lady called emily who came in the 19605. the problem is, the process that existed until today, to prove that somebody in these circumstances is allowed to stay here and receive benefits and all the rest of it, is unbelievably bureaucratic. whose fault was that? whose fault was that if the government made it so bureaucratic that the people could improve their status? —— so bureaucratic that the people could not prove their status? the system was bureaucratic and amber rudd said today, policy got in the way of the individual case. what about those who were deported, we still don't know how many people have actually been sent back to places they barely even knew as babies? as far as amber rudd in the commons said today, she wasn't aware of any cases of actual deportations.

looking at the media coverage and extensive research, i have seen two cases where it was contemplated but it didn't happen. as far as i am aware, no deportation cases... because you looked at two cases that didn't happen, you assume there no deportations? the home secretary said she isn't aware of any either but it shouldn't have got to the stage where people were facing the threat of deportation because people have been here for 30, 40, 50 years. it shouldn't have got to that because commonwealth leaders and high commissioners told you this was happening two years ago. why was it ignored? it was strongly escalated to three months ago... when the mail covered it rather than high commissioners making that point, and the guardian newspaper. you respond to the mail now? we respond to parliamentary debate.

everyone has acknowledged the system wasn't working properly. sonia's case makes that clear. i've seen it in a single piece of constituency casework as well. the system wasn't working. as an mp, i'm sorry for that and i'm sorry for the experience that sonia and other people have hacked. people have had. it was wrong. it's been fixed today. fixed? the timeline we're looking at is two weeks. there will be no charge at all. it wasn't working properly... trevor phillips, you were formerly head of the commission for racial equality, what do you think went wrong here? what went wrong and is still going wrong is every bit of this gets more disreputable by the second. they've put on poor old chris philp to defend the indefensible. the prime minister talks about burning injustices. this one should be burning a hole through her conscience. what we've now got is a situation where, actually, if you get to go on newsnight,

suddenly the home office calls you up. there are 50,000 people, they can't all get on newsnight. what's happened here is that actually the government was warned about this in 2014 by the runnymede trust and others that this was what was going to happen. they ignored it because a small group of caribbean people, we are laid—back, we aren't going to make a fuss. we don't have to be paying attention. was this old—fashioned racism? racism accusations would take the focus away from what happened. the government, whitehall, thought this was a group of people who really didn't matter. they don't vote for this government particularly, they are not significant, so we didn't need to pay attention to them. there are two pieces of legislation the home office should have paid attention to. first of all they've got a duty to pay attention to the diverse effects of legislation

on different groups. they didn't pay attention to the effect on this particular group. the human rights act says you should not be able to apply legislation retrospectively, and this is what the 2014 act did. what would you now be advising sonia and thousands like her to do? what would you now be advising sonia and thousands like her to do? i don't think it's up to them to do anything except to say you've got to fix it. i myself, have i not been lucky enough to be an accidental tenth child in my family, if i'd been born in guyana i would be in the same position. i wouldn't have the documentation. it's not for us to fix it, is for the government to fix this. what they could do is move the burden of proof on authorities, the driving authorities and so on to the authorities rather than the individual person like sonia, and secondly they need to think about other forms of id. for example in europe

you can bring forward letters, a letter from a solicitor that will show you were here. at the moment they are still keeping the hardline, never mind the stuff we heard today, there will still be people who are effectively stateless and jobless. thank you. nothing like calling for a parliamentary debate when the horse, as it were, has already bolted. for the first time since the strikes on syria this weekend, parliament has been consulted. stop bombing syria! outside the commons today there were protests from some who felt public opinion had been ignored. inside, the pm today faced critics and supporters in an extended debate and told mps the action was limited, targeted and effective. she insisted the government couldn't afford to wait. labour leaderjeremy corbyn called the intervention

legally questionable, calling for a war powers act, and reminded the prime minister she was accountable to parliament, not the whims of a us president. this was not about intervening in a civil war and it was not about regime change. it was about a limited, targeted and effective strike, that sought to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the syrian people by degrading the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterring their use. but the use of chemical weapons is prohibited. we cannot allow a situation to develop where countries and people think that the use of chemical weapons has been allowed to become normalised. jeremy corbyn. the attack in douma was an horrific attack on civilians using chemical weapons, part of a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. mr speaker, this statement serves as a reminder that the prime minister is accountable to this parliament, not to the whims of the us president. we clearly...

we clearly need a war powers act in this country to transform a now broken convention into a legal obligation. today's debate showed splits on both sides of the house over air strikes. former attorney general dominic grieve defended theresa may's decision, but ken clarke's appeal for formal rules wasn't a million miles away from the labour leader. yes, there was a problem with time, but surely once president trump had announced to the world what he was proposing, a widespread debate was taking place everywhere, including many mps in the media, but no debate in parliament. so, would she consider setting up, once the immediate issues are over, a cross—party commission of some kind, to set out precisely what the role of parliament is in modern times in the use of military power against another state?

and what exceptions, if any, there can be to the usual rule that the government needs parliamentary approval for taking grave actions of this kind. if the leader of the opposition persists on behalf of the labour party in changing its previous adherence to the previous rule of international law, justifying taking unilateral action in the event of there being a humanitarian necessity, does my right honourable friend agree with me the consequence of that is going to be that any tyrant, megalomaniac personally intent on carrying out genocide, if they have the support of an amoral state within the security council, will be able to conduct that genocide with total impunity. the strikes also again highlighted divides in labour ranks.

here are labour mps laura pidcock and mary creagh earlier in the house of commons. could the prime minister tell us if she is planning to use executive powers again with regard to military action in syria in breach of commonly understood parliamentary protocol, which will have given the house a say in a matter of war. there is clear opposition from british people to air strikes and i think the public are right to be sceptical. so could the prime minister also explain how friday's air strikes have improved the safety and security of syrian people practically, when we are aware the bombing and violence is continuing unabated throught the region? the international humanitarian law is clear, there is no time, no place ever where chemical weapons may be used and enforcing that law, that taboo, is absolutely imperative, whether those weapons are used on the streets of salisbury or the bunkers of douma. and many on this side of the house support the action she took. we also support labour's proud

tradition of taking action to intervene in humanitarian protection conflicts, notably in kosovo and sierra leone and we will act to protect that tradition. nick watt is with me now. nick, theresa may has just finished. what did she say? it's been a marathon session for theresa may and jeremy corbyn. 15 minutes agojeremy corbyn started summing up in that emergency debate called by alison mcgovern. in the last four minutes, theresa may summed up for the government. those six and a half hours on syria is why the government has backed away from having a debate tomorrow in their own time. they say that's why. labour say we know why you don't want to do it in your own time, because you would have to have a vote on a motion and you're nervous about that. what happens tomorrow? jeremy corbyn will call another emergency debate and this will be on his proposal to have a war powers act. that would take the power away

from prime minister ‘s who use the royal prerogative to be able to authorise military action and would give parliament the decisive say. thank you. well, mark lancaster is the armed forces minister and richard burgon is shadowjustice secretary. welcome. would you like to appear on newsnight tonight? i'm on newsnight tonight. so it was a pointless question. in other words, you're here, you've decided. that's what's happened all afternoon in parliament, isn't it? that's not the case. it's absolutely clear the use of chemical weapons cannot go unchallenged. it was a clear aim to deter the assad regime from using them again and also to degrade their ability to do it. timing is everything and the reason why the strikes happened last week was partly through working in coalition with our allies but also from a security of our armed forces and ability to deliver that strike decisively. if we hadn't acted when we acted we wouldn't have been able to do that.

what about democracy, what about trust, what about the sovereignty we spend so long talking about over brexit? of course it counts but we are absolutely clear that the prime minister has the executive power to do what she has done. no one is questioning that. timing was very, very important. for example, had we delayed it would have been possible to move those chemical weapons and use human shields in certain locations. that's why from a military... the timing of it doesn't work. it happened the saturday before last so a delay of nearly six days doesn't sound that urgent. you're missing the point. the timing of the strike was essential to deliver the effect we wanted to deliver. there was no surprise. there was complete surprise, there was no knowledge of which side was going to be attacked.

donald trump had tweeted about it a week earlier. donald trump did not tweet the locations of where the strikes were carried out. so it would have been a surprise wherever it had happened if all you were talking about was the location. do you think a debate would have changed your leader's mind on any of this? we should have had the debate that we had today in even greater detail before the bombing took place, and the bombing of course took place as the experts from the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons were actually on their way to the site... that doesn't answer the question which is do you actually think that jeremy corbyn's mind would have been changed by a debate? the burden is on the prime minister to persuade our parliament that it's in the country's interest and in the interest of international peace to take military action. i remember on robin cook's gravestone be a bit half is "i may not have stopped the war in a rock by succeeding establishing the principle that britain should not go to war without the authority of parliament —— to war in iraq". i think it is a dangerous precedent for our democracy and a dangerous precedent

for the whole rule of law internationally as well. wouldn't it be more honest perhaps forjeremy corbyn and others who feel the same way to say, we are now a pacifist party. we do not believe in intervention, we do not believe in military intervention of any kind. hold their hands up and say yes, that's where we stand. we aren't a pacifist party. in 1999jeremy corbyn backed un backed action in relation to east timor. we aren't a pacifist party. if you want to look at libya, there was un approval for

intervention there and it still wasn't supported byjeremy corbyn. it might be the prime minister is thinking i'm not going to persuade him because i understand and appreciate where he comes from. if the prime minister is afraid of having votes because she think she can't guarantee she will win them, that sets us off on a dangerous path towards what loyal to hailsham called an elective dictatorship. on the subject of libya i think most people, or many people recognise that british intervention in libya was a mistake and that four people in libya the situation is much worse and even worse than it was before our intervention. there is a carelessness with this kind of treatment of an established parliament like ours. there's nothing careless about the manner in which the strikes were delivered.

they were precise, proportionate... it's about trusting what the british people have voted for. this happened in 2013 in mali. jeremy corbyn has made it clear he feels action like this could only happen with the sanction of the un security council. that is effectively delivering russia a veto to british foreign policy. if there is a chemical attack next month and let's say there one a month after that and won the month after that, do you keep on waiting for proof of the last one? you've had proof that assad has used chemical weapons on his own people in syria from two years ago. how long do you wait for the next bit of proof? it has been found assad has used chemical weapons, it has been found al-qaeda and other groups have used chemical weapons... if it keeps happening, if it carries on happening in may, june, july and august, do you constantly wait

for the last thing to finish? these are hypothetical situations... anybody, whether it's assad or opposition forces in syria were used chemical weapons, they have to be held to account through sanctions and criminal actions against them as well. we need to allow the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons which came about as a great achievement between nations after the first world war to do their work so we can pursue justice and peace and a half of the syrian people. sweden has long—held itself up as a humanitarian superpower, the world's first feminist government and even the most welcoming european country during the migrant crisis. in 2016 the country took in more refugees per capita than any other nation. but in recent years it has also become the target of criticism from the right — nigel farage deemed malmo the rape capital of the world. violent gang crime has gone up. in the last two years over 50 grenades have been detonated. one inside a police station. so is it the liberal utopia the left

would have us believe, or has an open door immigration policy caused social chaos? james clayton reports. we think the man picked up the hand grenade right about here. then he and his wife walked off for like 30 metres and the grenade exploded at the fourth lamp post over there. and he was killed? yes, he was killed. a grenade attack in sweden, that seems very unusual? it's not unusual, unfortunately. but it's here now. music. sweden, who would believe this? sweden! gang—related crime in sweden is rising and for many on the right, it's been used as a case study of how migration policy can go horribly wrong.

do you feel that sweden is being fought over at all? oh yes. oh yes, it's very clear that sweden is a symbol. sweden has been a very provocative example for many on the right side of the political spectrum. a suggestion the other day you should have tougher sentences for crimes committed in no—go zones. that's like apartheid rules. the way that the left and the right paint sweden is very different. the left sees sweden as a paragon of socialjustice and liberal democracy. and the right view sweden as a place where political correctness and an open door policy to migration has led to social chaos. sweden has become a global battlefield of ideology. sweden is a safe country by relative standards, but certain types of crime

are on the rise here. in the last two years, over 50 hand grenades were detonated in sweden, like this attack on a police station in malmo in january. it's an astonishing number for a country not at war. sweden doesn't publish the data on the ethnicities of perpetrators, but police tell me the grenades are used by gangs who are mainly drawn from high immigrant areas of sweden's cities. and these are from the ball bearings? the ball bearings, yes. from the grenade. reine berglund, attended the aftermath of the grenade that exploded in varby, in southern stockholm injanuary. a man picked it up well cycling home. police think he may have thought it was a toy. he died at the scene. police have yet to charge anyone, but believe it may be connected to a shooting in a restaurant days before. do you feel safe here? i feel safe when i work but we think about our tactics, how we park our cars and we stay together.

over the years, people have thrown rocks, molotov cocktails, stuff like that. were from? from the upper side, here. from up there? yes, from the subway. so you've got stones, you've got molotov cocktails, you've got grenades, it doesn't sound like sweden, does it? no, and it's not the only place in sweden that's like that. do you think this is a no—go zone? no no—go zone for the police, but i know the term is used by people. because a lot of people, particularly in the right wing media said the police don't go into places in stockholm like malmo and gothenberg? that's not right, it's almost the opposite, you call it a no—go zone, we are here all the time. police said the grenades are old stock, left over from fighting in the former yugoslavia and smuggled across europe. they are now so common and their street value is absurdly cheap. this and this together.

they are 200 kronas. and that is the same price as a grenade in stockholm. part of the discourse in sweden surrounding these attacks and an increase in other violent crimes like shootings, is immigration policy. during the european migrant crisis, the swedes took in per capita, the highest number of migrants. paulina neuding is a writer and journalist and editor at the website kvartal. journalism for adults is how she describes it and for her it's very clear that crime and migration are linked. you must realise that sweden has very serious problems. when a scandinavian welfare society has these sorts... but sweden has incredible levels of life expectancy, happiness, high employment. there are lots of things to learn from sweden, aren't there?

sweden is a scandinavian welfare state, we've done very well. but this is a new development that we have to understand. controversially, paulina believes there are no—go zones in sweden for police, paramedics and journalists. it's a term that american news organisations like breitbarts and fox news have become obsessed with, but police and the government strongly rejects. wejoined her as she interviewed two union leaders of the ambulance service, who were surprisingly candid about their experience of working in stockholm's suburbs. are there no—go zones in stockholm? yes, it can be when you are in some place and take care of people, they need your help. people get violent when you are coming to them. we never leave the people behind, but in some cases, we must stay and wait so the police are coming. henrik is referring to places like rinkeby in stockholm, an area with relatively high levels of deprivation and crime. for decades, it's been a destination forfirst—generation migrants.

a riot last year cemented the town's reputation as a place to avoid for many swedes. and journalists reporting here have been attacked in the past. we went to the town to speak to amin and hashim, who've set up a group trying to stop violence in the area. do you think this is a no—go zone for the police? there's a lot of people that don't live in rinkeby, and come to work here every single day. they manage to get home safely, so just that shows you this is definitely not a no—go zone. instead of finding a solution, a long—term solution for these problems, this is a complex problem and you call them a no—go zone. it'sjust like labelling it. making it easy for politics to decide over people instead of including them in the solutions. i don't think swedish society

is very open for immigrants. i think there is a lot of xenophobia. but they've let the most, the highest number per capita of migrants. well, it's not the people who have let in, it's the government. you have two separate the government from the people. do you think there's a disconnect there? there's definitely a disconnect. we will see, it is election year this year. we will see, the people will speak. so what's the truth about areas like rinkeby? well, it's unscientific but we spent about an hour in the centre of the town and the vast majority of people were fine with us being there. i mean, it looks all right, it's difficult to know exactly what the police come up against. certainly journalists have been attacked here. but at the moment, it doesn't look that bad. during our time in rinkeby, one person using a few choice words told us to leave. but hardly the lawless, no—go zone that some have depicted for us, at least. in september, sweden goes to the polls in an election

where crime and migration are going to be key issues. and the anti—immigration sweden democrats are looking to make significant gains. the left would say that you're whipping up racial tension for political gain? that's their way of seeing it. they are the ones who never wanted to debate those questions. every time there was reaction towards the immigration policies, we were called racists. what i'm saying is, we cannot go on taking in so many people like we have done before. do you think that's going to threaten the welfare state? absolutely, it will. you really think it will? yes it will. and you don't think that over egging it? no, it will, sooner or later, the welfare system will go under if we keep doing this. because of migration? because of migration. the idea that sweden's famously generous welfare state is in danger is clearly politically emotive. and other figures keen to forget

there are consequences to high levels of migration have made claims about sweden that go even further. pro rata, sweden have taken more young, male migrants than any other country in europe. and there has been a dramatic rise in sexual crime in sweden. so much so, that malmo is now the rape capital of europe and some argue even the rape capital of perhaps the world. criminologists say this is wrong and that the number of rapes has remained fairly steady over the last ten years. there are also intrinsic problems with international comparisons. nigel farage said that malmo was now the rape capital of europe. is that fair? no, i don't think it's fair. it's because of the environment in sweden, we work to help women report these rapes and maybe we just succeed better than other countries. do you think that some people are using statistics in certain ways for political ends? i know they do.

this is a problem with statistics. you can show almost anything you want if you just cut off some different factors and you can make it the way you want it to be. butjust as some have overplayed sweden's problems, it's also evident that other legitimate concerns about migration and integration haven't always been taken seriously by the mainstream political parties. sweden's ministerfor home affairs, morgan johansson, was the immigration minister during the migrant crisis. some people blame the number of migrants that sweden have let in in the last five years. do you think there's any link to that policy and the crime rate increasing? i certainly don't see that link when i'm looking at the swedish prisons or custody. i mean, 1% of the population in our swedish prisons are syrians. 1% is from afghanistan.

the people who are causing problems for us today, the vast majority of them are born in sweden. that's not an issue of migration, it's an issue of integration. but i also said there is a political agenda mostly from the political right abroad and globally, to use problems in sweden as a way of saying don't accept migrants. don't have that kind of open—hearted policies that sweden has been known for. sweden divides opinion. it's a well—run country and its economy is booming, but it's also become the target for many on the right who want to prove that mass migration cannot work. the sweden example doesn't quite show that, but it does illustrate that even well—organised countries can still struggle with integration.

that's all for tonight. before we go, today would have been comedian spike milligan's 100th birthday. he died in 2002, but he left a huge legacy in subversive comedy. here's one of his sketches from "there's a lot of it about", shown on the bbc in 1982. evan's here tomorrow, goodnight. you may have heard on the news, spike milligan died at his home in barnett aged 104. widely regarded as a true comedy genius, he had onlyjust finished recording a new series of his zany, wacky half—hour shows for the bbc. that is bbc two of course, not bbc one, who tended to regard him as a light entertainment leper. even though many will mourn his eccentric talent, we have been asked by the trustee of his estate, a miss glenda plunge of latex dungeon, soho, to honour his memory in the way he

would have surely wished. bbc two is now proud to present george formby in spare a copper. stop it! stop it, i said. the latest live update now from bbc weather and the long—awaited spring warmup has almost arrived. from wednesday, we are going to see temperatures set up and a high tweens and low 20s quite widely, some spots into the mid— 20s, the warmest weather of springs so far. not quite there yet. another weather system to clear on first of all matters to the rest of the night, bringing some outbreaks of rain to wales and england, and northern

ireland in scotland, pretty wet times. quite windy as well, picking up times. quite windy as well, picking up as well and quite dusty as we go through tuesday. areas of low pressure the west of us are feeding the front. hanging around parts of northern england and wales. this is oui’ northern england and wales. this is our tuesday morning is looking. a blustery picture across the uk. some outbreaks of rain close by but northern ireland has pushed on through. northern ireland and western scotland, gusts at 50 miles an hour. across the uk, scotland, northern ireland seeing some sunny spells. showers into the afternoon, heavy and thundery. cloud into the midlands and wales, the south—west, patchy outbreaks of rain. the best of the sunshine will be through eastern counties. the highest temperatures of the year so far, the first we are seeing so far. but

warmer weather is on the way. wednesday, still a bit of way —— still a bit of rain first thing on through the day. sunshine follows the many of us, especially england and wales and temperatures sneaking into the low 20s here. but everywhere seeing an increase in temperature. sunshine and dry weather as high pressure builds in, bringing even warmer airfrom the near continent as we go on through thursday. still some patchy cloud. the best of the sunshine, central and eastern parts of england on thursday, mid— 20s. it is widely still the warmest weather of the year so far. i'm rico hizon in singapore.

this is newsday on the bbc. the headlines: a bbc exclusive with russia's foreign minister who says relations with the west are worse than the cold war. during the cold war, there were channels of communication. there was no obsession with russophobia. shinzo abe returns to president trump's florida home for talks with a focus on trade and north korea. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: donald trump hits back at the former fbi directorjames comey who claims he was "morally unfit to be president." and the secret slave gangs funding north korea's nuclear programme from abroad.