and can politicians get away with blaming poor administration? or do they have to take responsibility for setting the culture? the former head of the civil service and a supporter of rigorous immigration control will argue that out. meanwhile, commonwealth leaders gather in london and meet the queen. is it still relevant to us these days, let alone to the other 52 member states? and how does it feel to have your business ruined by your bank? i cannot explain the pressure in your chest when something like that happens. you feel you cannot breathe properly. you shake. you do not sleep. it is not until you go through it, you cannot explain it. hello. home office scandals tend to have a weird and extended life—cycle. in the windrush case, it started five years ago,

with a hardening of immigration policy. that created tragic problems for some people but, strangely, public attention barely registered the issues until the last few days when the whole ghastly business erupted in one go. now we're in a new phase — a frantic partisan debate over who's to blame for the destruction of important records — the landing cards that said who arrived when. theresa may pinned that decision down to labour's period in office. but why are we arguing about it, when she conceded that politicians probably didn't know about the landing cards anyway? the life—cycle of this particular fiasco bears upon the future too. what does it imply about the home office's ability to look after eu citizens here? well, no—one thinks the home office has shown britain at its best, and this all at least it invites a blame game between the politicians and those who have to administer their will. here's chris cook. well, believe me, iam speaking broad—mindedly. i am glad to know my mother country. our state's callousness

towards windrush‘s generation britain seems boundless. london is the place for me. we knew about problems stemming from the government when they were asked to prove their residents before 1973. we now know that landing cards, the government's log of their arrival were destroyed in 2010. from 2010 the government is doing everything they could to tackle illegal immigration. they set up a task force with regard to a hostile environment and anyone who did not have the right documents. the huge and people who are in the uk legitimately, the windrush generation, and other commonwealth migrants, do not have papers and they were not able to prove their legitimate right to be in the country. mi efqeléfi’qzeezfiemm—p’fi’ ”7 17 e:

of the british government. in the absence of any other who are finding themselves under such stress. questions to the prime minister. the decision to destroy the cards was taken by officials are not ministers. this afternoon, it was a political football in the house of commons. did the prime minister, the then home secretary, sign of that decision? no.

the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 under a labour government. all of this has obviously been grim for the windrush generation. there may be other concerns for the future ban it raises. specifically, what will happen to eu nationals currently living in the uk after brexit? you see, it is quite likely that after we leave the european union, eu citizens who come after brexit date will have different rights to eu citizens who arrived in britain before that day. one big task, for the states — the home office in particular — will be working at which people going to which group, similar to what had to happen with the

windrush generation. the home office have proved very bad at that administrative task as well as heartless towards people who did not keep the decades of paperwork required to help the home office make that determination. the home office will be going out of their way to design a system that will be as easy—to—use as possible. there are lots of positive stories about where they have got to so far. it draws on information across government. it is light touch, digital and easy for applicants. in the majority of cases it would work well. there could be groups, maybe the elderly who do not know they need to apply and do not want to apply, for these people, there is a concern they would come face—to—face with the presumption of guilt we have seen in some of the windrush cases and that could be a real problem. the eu has previously noticed the home office culture and has sought to provide provisions to protect eu citizens from it. it definitely strengthens our resolve to make sure there are watertight guarantees that, whoever has resided in the united kingdom

would have resided for decades, also who would have been residing in the european union for decades but that their status will be settled. dealing with the windrush scandal will require a change in approach for the home office, that it clearly the ease with which it comes to presume guilt. they need to change anyway before they seek to deal with more than 3 million eu citizens. chris cook, our policy editor there. we've asked the government to join us on this story the last three nights, but nobody has been available. the home office and its culture is at the centre of this. we'll debate how this has gone wrong shortly with a former head of the civil service, and a defender of the tougher immigration controls. but everybody agrees that it's too easy in some abstract way to support a policy while forgetting what it actually means in real cases, which means we should keep reminding ourselves what the human

effects have been. james clayton has been talking to clayton barnes and his daughter — he's a jamaican national who worked as a roofer here for half a century and had indefinite leave to remain, but unwittingly forfeited it when he retired to jamaica, only to find he couldn't get back in to even visit his family. despite having a uk pension. dad came to the uk around 1959. lived a full life, got married, had a house here. travel back and forth to jamaica to see family. he had indefinite leave to remain in his passport, a stamp in the passport, which he never had any problems with. he just used to come and go. with having a jamaican passport with indefinite leave there was no need to have a british passport. in 2010 clayton retired to jamaica. when he wanted to return on a family trip he was prevented from doing so. the problem started in 2013.

he had been back around three years. we had not seen him and thought we would do a surprise visit with him coming to england and doing a surprise visit at christmas for the kids. booked the flights and sent the details. as he checked in they told me he could not fly because his indefinite leave to remain was invalid. the man says his indefinite leave to remain had expired, but as he was just going back to visit relatives on a short visist, they applied for a short stay visa. the response they got back shocked the family. i have got it here. that is this letter here. it does not, in my opinion, does not really give what you call a valid reason. "i am not satisfied to your intentions of wishing to travel to the uk now and am not satisfied that you intend on a short visit only to the uk and will leave the uk at the end of your visit." he lived here for 51 years,

paid taxes and national insurance. he was devastated. he could barely talk on the phone to me. he felt he had done something wrong and i had to keep reassuring him he had done nothing wrong. it feels like he's been deported, because he is not allowed back. for me, the reasoning is not really a reason. after another attempt in 2014, clayton had had enough. he has not been back to the uk in eight years. we spoke to him from his hospital bed injamaica about how he felt about his situation. does it feel like you have been deported ? what would you say now to the prime minister, theresa may? what would be your message to her? clayton's health is deteriorating

and his family does not expect now he will ever come back to the country where he lived for most of his life. it would have been nice for him to have come back for little things, just before he passes, just have that memory as well, not just only of jamaica because this is his family life, this is where he got married and had kids and where he worked. i'd don't want him to die with just that memory. another case in detail are. tonight the home office said its new windrush helpline staff would offer support to mr barnes if he made contact with them. in a statement the department said the home secretary had been clear that the government didn't want people who had built their lives here in the uk to feel unwelcome. joining me is lord kerslake, who was head of the civil service when the hostile environment policy was introduced.

he's a crossbench peer, who has done work for the labour party. also with me is david goodhart, s the head of demography, immigration, and integration at the policy exchange think—tank. good evening to you both. lord kerslake, i wonder if i can just ask you a few questions about the narrow policy things. landing cards. i know this was when you were ahead of the civil service, the time the landing cards were destroyed. is it likely someone would have destroyed those without talking to a minister? is it the kind of thing the guys on the ground could say, you can get rid of these are now will be some discussion or does it go into a red box? it is pretty likely they would destroy records altogether. particularly personal records. we don't know is the truth. we need to investigate this in more detail to understand what happened. we can say that the borders agency was effectively part of the civil service and it took its advice from ministers.

the jury is open on that one. the hostile environment, this is a point where you are running the civil service. theresa may says we will have an immigration act in 2014 and i want this to make life much tougher for illegal immigrants. what was the advice? what were the civil service saying? starting with the story of how we got to this point. the prime minister in opposition gave a commitment to reduce net migration to tens of thousands. when they came into office it became pretty clear that was damn near impossible. principally because net migration from europe was the largest part of this. the consequence of that was really two things. one was to bare down pretty brutally on those who were not from europe, so policy became pretty tough from those outside

the european union. the second thing that happened was to ramp up the rhetoric and the action in relation to those who were considered to be illegal immigrants. and the challenge really then was, had eu put that into practice and do it quickly? how do you make an impact? in truth, what we can see here is the effect of doing in that way has led to some unfair consequences. but did the civil service say, "theresa may, don't do this, because we don't know the difference between illegal and legal immigrants and how do we distinguish between them?" that is the essence of the problem we face now. the civil service would have given advice on some of the challenges of the policies that were being taken forward, they would have said there is a risk that you take action against those who are actually lawfully here because we don't have the information. speaking hypothetically, though, did they say that? is your regulation that people were saying, this is a challenging policy, home secretary?

it was notjust a question of the home secretary being told that, the prime minister was as well, and this was a very contested piece of legislation across government departments. now, i can't say, and shouldn't say, who gave what advice to whom, but what i can tell you is that it was highly contested, and there was some, i shall not name them, saying it was reminiscent of nazi germany. in the civil service? ministers were deeply unhappy. deeply unhappy at the policy? yeah. can the government now say the windrush problem has exploded in our faces and we were not told about it by the experts? i don't think they can say that, really, you have created an environment in which action would be taken, and it was a risk, obvious to everyone, that you would take the rough with the smooth. it would be quite wrong to land this

on the civil service, basically. this was a conscious policy in order to hold onto a strong policy position that was proving very difficult to implement. david goodhart, do you think the policy of the hostile environment was the right policy? obviously, it was the right policy. there is no point having a border if you do not enforce your border. that means you have to bear down on illegal immigration. i mean, ithink, with respect to what bob was saying, he is clearly wrong that... clearly a big mistake was made here, when they introduced the so—called hostile environment, they should have been thinking about, are there batches of people at there in history who may not be able to prove their right to residency? alarm bells should have rung, and i think that is a lack of institutional memory, the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. the bigger point is that any home office has to protect

the country's border. the only thing wrong with the hostile environment policy is it awful name. the reason why we had to have this policy is not, as bob said, because ministers aggressively want to reach this 100,000 target. the whole point is that illegal immigrant is to not show up in the statistics, so that is a nonsense. but the reason why this happened is because it was harder and harder, because we are a very liberal country, legal and political predictions made it very difficult to deport people in the normal way, so what happened was, theresa may and nick timothy thought, look, we need to make it more difficult for... we have a big illegal immigration problem, 1 million people here illegally, this is not a trivial problem. a couple of points, words matter here.

if you talk about a hostile policy, it tells you what the intention is here... hostile to illegal immigration, as it should be. humane and confident would be a better way of looking at it, and other countries have exactly that approach, so we have got to think about the language here, and what flows from the language. the second point is, of course, you have to manage migration and deal with illegal immigrants. the point i was making was that the push, the specific push that was driving this was the difficulties around... i disagree. i have been out with enforcement teams, by the way, the most

ethnically mixed workgroup i have experienced in britain, six white british, six black and asian brits, and they think they are doing a good public service, and they are, and they are very aware of the fact that offenders can also be victims. theresa may's concern for the security of the border is linked up with the modern slavery agenda, and they are very aware of the job they are doing, because people live in a limbo world, often subject to enormous exploitation. bearing down on illegal immigration is an extremely important policy, and it must not be knocked... track by this horrendous mistake over the windrush generation. of course you have to deal with illegal immigration, and of course the staff do the job in the way they are asked to do it. the point i am making is different. the pressure in the system ramped up the rhetoric... what i see is the hostile environment, the abdication of discretionary policies. there are meant to be discretionary policies, we expect to see someone living with a british pension to get

a tourist visa to visit theirfamily. it is the operation that discretion which seems to have been binary, either soft touch all ludicrously an affair. that was a completely different case, the one that we have just seen, and the home office is in a better state than it was ten or 15 years ago, and tell 15 years ago, partly because we had a labour government too had opened the door, a huge increase in immigration, and a lot of labour ministers liked to blame bureaucracy for the switch in policy... that is not what we are experiencing now. amber rudd has said that, she effectively laid it on to the home office, too concerned with strategy and policy, not enough with individuals. i felt that was completely ridiculous, i'm afraid, exactly as david has said, the staff have been doing the job they have been asked to do, and to say that it was down to an administrative issue is just wrong, really. you know, let's be very clear about this, you cannot create this climate and are not expected to have consequences. what we need, this problem

would never have arisen if we had id cards. we have id cards for all non—eu people who are here for six months or more, and we should roll at out to the europeans. thank you both very much indeed. it is no coincidence that the windrush fiasco has occurred during chogm, the commonwealth heads of government meeting. there are two ways of looking at this. one might say that it has shown british disregard for the interests of the commonwealth, or that the fact that it has become an issue shows the up—to—date importance of the commonwealth. so how important or relevant is the commonwealth these days? before we discuss that, let's have some facts. it is a grouping of 2.4 billion people and 53 countries. the words are 53 "independent and equal states". it should really be called the indian commonwealth, as more than half of the population live in that one country. britain is barely even

the biggest economy any more. depending on how you measure it, india has already overtaken us. and finally, it has always affected the british relationship with europe. in the ‘50s, believe it or not, there were discussions about getting some european countries to join — france! that all came to nothing. well, today prince harry and megan markle were among those who attended the chogm summit in london. it officially kicks off tomorrow. but in a post—brexit world, does it make sense for us to keep the commonwealth going at all? and, especially, does it make sense for everybody else to keep it? i'm joined in the studio by senegalese—born entrepreneur mariemejamme and by writer and broadcaster afua hirsh. marieme, senegal is not a member of the commonwealth, would you like it to be?

i would love to! what would you get out of it? we love britain, i love britain, and i think that, you know, i think, yeah, i would prefer not to be a francophone, really! but in terms of the history, the heritage of the connections of countries to their colonial dominators, you think the british would have been a better one than the french for senegal? if we look right now into the african francophone economy and the british commonwealth economies, you can really see that, you know, there is more discipline, more investment going into the commonwealth african countries. but i am struck, you can't tell me a tangible benefit you would get by joining the commonwealth, you don't get paid $1 billion a year, i mean, you get a nice trip every now and then. you see the peace, i am senegalese, i have been here for over 20 years, so the rule of law, democracies, all of that is good from the commonwealth. afua hirsh, you think this as too

many imperial connotations in the modern world? it is not subtle. one day there was a british colonial office, then the commonwealth, and most of the institutions didn't even have to change their acronym, from colony to commonwealth. it is direct a descendant of the empire, and one of the things i am advocating is that we could be honest about that, and stop trying to pretend... everyone knows it is a legacy of empire, don't they? nobody tries to cover that up, do they? then what does it mean to have that legacy, because it is not something we have dealt with in britain, and if you speak to people about that, they describe it as a benevolent edwardian ngo that went around building schools and hospitals.

to this day, colonial patterns of resource extraction and domination are still alive and affecting african economies. i have lived in senegal, and one of the things that is really interesting is the comparison between the french neocolonial relationship and the british neocolonial relationship, but they are both neocolonial relationships, and that is something that is absolutely inherent to the commonwealth. i want to put you on this, i tried to get marieme to say a tangible benefit. the question for you is, what is a tangible harm to a country being a member of the commonwealth? i can tell you don't like the imperial connotation, but what do they lose by suffering under that piece of history today? i can give you an example that is related to your last item, about the caribbean. 14 states in the caribbean are currently trying to sue the british government for reparations for slavery, and a number commonwealth members. because of the commonwealth,

the british governance is trying to block that claim, so that is perverse. you think they would win it if they were not in the commonwealth? if you want to see the harm that comes out of the commonwealth, look at the treatment of the caribbean heads of state who wanted to meet with the government, and the government showed no interest in talking to them about the fact that british people were being deported to their country. so the idea that it is arelationship of love and respect is challenged. these are not equal states, are they? i do agree with afua, but we need to look at how britain is helping these countries to have democracy, the rule of law. this is the neocolonialism, imposing our current values. like the gambia, the president of gambia was in britain, now he has gone back to his country, and we need the commonwealth to set the rules and the framework. do you like the links? you basically think poorer african countries benefit from links...? and britain also benefits, i think that is where theresa may

needs to think about what we can do for the commonwealth countries, greatertrade, respect, rule of law, all of that needs to come back. afua, to be consistent, you should really think the british or not be encouraging commonwealth countries to make homosexual sex is legal, we should be promoting these things. i am a former human rights lawyer, i am unequivocally respectful of human rights, and one of the good consequences of these nations being together in the commonwealth is that they have this ability to set certain values and standards, and they have been enforcing them patchily, so it is not a simplistic tick. commonwealth countries are fighting for their rights, so i think we should be looking at how africa is progressing, like rwanda, tanzania, all these countries are progressing.

i have no kids you with these countries being part of an organisation, miss you is with the idea that britain is doing the world a favour by being part of the commonwealth. we are allowed to do ourselves a favour! it advocates for liberalised regimes allowing for siphoning off money that should be, actually, repatriated in countries in africa and the caribbean, tax savings elsewhere in the commonwealth. this is a system that benefits britain, and we need to confront this, you know, we can't pretend we seamlessly moved from empire into a commonwealth of equals where everyone enjoys respect, that is not how it worked. thank you both very much! a few weeks back, you couldn't move for brexit coverage on this programme, but it's all been rather quieter in recent times. well, that changed a little today after the lords voted to amend the eu (withdrawal) bill. they hope their vote will force the government's hand on remaining in a customs union.

the government takes a different view. our political editor, nick watt, is with me. what exactly did the lords vote for today? it is a heavy defeat for the government in the house of lords on a customs union. peers voted to require the government to report back by the end of october on the steps that they are taking to negotiate membership of a customs union with the eu. the crucial point is they are not forcing or requiring begun to negotiate a customs union. it is milder than that. everyone agrees you could not oblige the government to do that.

the government is saying it is disappointed and has not decided whether it would seek to overturn this boat in the house of commons. the government is saying, even if this goes through the uk will still leave the customs union and the uk government says that it's really important in terms negotiating free—trade deals around the world. this is a lords amendment and it will now go back to the house of commons. one suspects there are more mps overall who would rather be in a customs union and out —— than out of it. if the government does seek to overturn this in the house of commons they will be in trouble are not able to do it. they are saying they believe this is now creating a great mentor behind a customs union, being in a customs union. —— momentum. now people are seeing there really is a choice. it is a choice between what this person described as utterly speculative free trade deals around the world and billing in the european union, customs union. good for manufacturing jobs and dealing with the northern ireland border. thank you very much. it was the report they told us we couldn't see, showing widespread and systematic mistreatment of

thousands of small business owners. customers were told rbs natwest‘s global restructuring group was a turnaround division to help improve their fortunes. but a leaked report for the regulator, the fca, found it was a profit centre with an intentional, co—ordinated strategy to put the bank's interests ahead of its customers‘. many of them were ruined, and the report found the board of rbs responsible for their distress. but the fca wouldn't publish it, saying it was legally barred. now it's come out, newsnight‘s spoken to a hotel developer ruined in the scandal who says that deprived him of vital evidence that could have helped him find justice. here's andy verity. you won't find any names of small business owners in the damning leaked report into rbs‘s so—called turnaround division, the global restructuring group. the dozens of ruined customers, whose stories it documents, have been stripped of identifying features. but now, we can put a name and a face to one anonymous number.

case extract 38, chris richardson. after banking with them for so many years, we were sure that they were there to assist us. but, no, they just had their own agenda. and their agenda was anything but turnaround, let me tell you. all of this, the furniture, all the staircases, this is how we designed it. we took chris back to the hotel he and his business partner had set up, only to have it taken from them. they bought a rundown site in sittingbourne, kent, ploughed in their own money and agreed more than £4 million of borrowing from rbs natwest to transform it. we were ten days from opening. we had the kent teachers booked here, a couple of weddings straightaway. and that's before we had even opened the doors. they were confirmed bookings. so, it was fantastic. i mean, sittingbourne never had a hotel like this. we were having it seated for 124 people. the bank sees things differently

and says the business was in serious financial difficulty, needing significant additional costs to complete. it moved them to its so—called turnaround division, the global restructuring group. while it's highly critical of the bank in many respects, the report for the fca said the transfer was appropriate, given the business's financial position. well, this is the ballroom. everything's same in here now as it was. four months earlier, the hotel had been valued at £7.7 million once it was up and running. but now, the new valuer, knight frank, was brought in and valued it on a different basis, 2.5 million to 3 million to sell immediately without the extra work still needed. on that much lower valuation, chris and his partner were in breach of their loan terms. this is where they've done the deed and sacked everybody in this very room. within weeks, he lost control of the hotel he'd been developing, staff were sacked and he was thrown off the premises. chris and his partner were ruined.

could not believe what was going on. and, i can't explain the pressure on the chest when something like that happens. yeah, you feel you can't breathe properly. you know, you shake. you don't sleep. it's not until you go through it, you can't explain it. you can't explain the feeling. the final blow for chris came when the hotel rbs says was in serious financial difficulty and did up in the hands of its own property division, west register, and opened its doors to guests. west register later sold it at a loss. these are my main files that i use, pretty much every day. since then, chris has spent years fighting the bank, drawing on a roomful of evidence to try to prove his hotel had been unfairly taken. with money running low he had to stand up in court himself against expensive legal teams. in 2013, chris's wife karen died of cancer, aged just 45, leaving him and three daughters. she urged him, before she died,

not to give up his struggle. years later, he met dee, his new partner. what happened in 2010 still dominates their life. it's really got to the stage where the kids... if the phone goes or something happens, as soon as they know i'm doing paperwork, that's it. they leave me alone. it's not fair on them. it's not fair on anyone. chris's claims against rbs natwest were dismissed by the courts. last year, another court was asked to make him bankrupt and he was. but then, the breakthrough. new information that chris says cast fresh light on what happened. the parliamentary committee has taken the unusual step of using its powers to force the financial regulator to hand over a report into the mistreatment of business customers by the royal bank of scotland. the financial regulator had

asked consultants to look into the bank's turnaround division. but, for a year and a half, the fca wouldn't publish it, citing legal constraints. an explosive finding that nearly nine out of ten customers the report reviewed suffered inappropriate treatment was kept from the public. after versions of the report were leaked first to the bbc, and then put on the internet, mps demanded the report and published it in full and chris came across his own case. as i was turning them over, this page sort of left my hand and flew across and floated onto the carpet. i can't believe it because, when i picked that up, it was page 246 and i was looking at it. as i was reading it, i was going... that's my case. ijust dropped the papers. i was walking round. as i read it, iwas fuming. i was shaking. the report revealed that, back in 2010, unbeknownst to chris

at the time, a third party was influencing what happened to his business, the part of the bank that ended up buying his hotel, west register. ten days after his business had been transferred to the global restructuring group, an official from west register joined a meeting with the valuer and the bank to discuss his business. chris knew west register had been in on discussions from earlier evidence but the report went further, quoting minutes he'd never seen, showing the west register official had talked down the hotel's value. paul wolfenden is a former local head of valuation at surveyors dtz and an expert witness. we asked him what he thought the valuer should do when a potential purchasers seeks to implement valuation. ideally, he shouldn't have joined the call in the first place, because if he knew that the purchaser was going to be on the call, he should not have joined the call. once he knew the purchaser was on the call, he should either have refused to answer

questions or rung off. knight frank told us the valuation process was conducted entirely properly and produced a valuation figure which was wholly accurate. in the leaked report, chris found something more — a bank e—mail, also never disclosed to him, revealed his turnaround manager even recommended keeping the hotel shut. the bank did exactly what the turnaround manager suggested, dismissing other options. the bank says west register‘s was the highest of six bids, as the result of an open market sale. i think it's just fundamentally inappropriate because, why would the bank condone the purchaser being on the line, talking values down, when the bank ought to be motivated to get them the highest possible price, a) to redeem as much of the loan and, b) to reduce the loss of the borrower? rbs said the west register employee in the meeting had been brought

in for specialist knowledge and it didn't alter the valuation. imagine if your mortgage lender told you your house price had dropped and it was now worth too little compared to your loan. it wants its money back and you lose control of your house. then imagine how you'd feel if you found out later that all along your bank had a property division that was interested in buying your house and had been talking its value down. chris richardson's case is one among thousands who stories until now the bank and regulator wouldn't let you see. the mistreatment of small businesses might sound like a matter of money, of property, of faceless case numbers, but behind those numbers is a human cost to business people, their families, their health. i need to move on, you know, because i can't afford to put myself in a pit, feel sorry for myself, you know? i've got to move on and live my life, but it's been very difficult, with all of this going on.

there's no justice, and i'm bankrupt, i've got trustees in bankruptcy. it's wrong, it's wrong. it's morally wrong. andy verity with that report. well, rbs gave us a statement about chris's case. they said... just about all we have time for, but one newspaper, the sun, leading on dale winton has died. remembered of course for supermarket sweep and for hosting the lottery programme as well. tributes as he dies at home.

that is it for tonight. emily will be in new york where she will be speaking to james comey — his first interview as a british journalist that of a british journalist since he was sacked. that's it for tonight. but before we go tonight, cbeebies has launched a new slow television programme, daydreams, narrated by olivia coleman and with music by tom jenkinson, also known as squarepusher. the aim is to help children relax, by focusing on the details of the world around them. we thought we could all use a bit of that. goodnight. pause, look. bubbles rise in the light. good evening. it has been like someone good evening. it has been like someone today with temperatures into the 20s quite widely across southern and eastern areas. but even in the north into the genes. 25 in a few

places in central london. higher than that as we go through tomorrow, because we keep the clear skies, so it will turn cooler overnight. we still have the weather front meandering around northern ireland. a bit of drizzly rain in scotland. for many of us understory skies, it will turn cool, particularly in the countryside. but that won't last. the sun is that strong at this time of year, and it will be in the high category, the uv index. so those we have not seen sunshine, it is strong now. mist fog will clear for most parts. —— mist fog will clear. given the odd light shower, plenty of sunshine between four northern ireland. but the south, the potential for a little bit ireland. but the south, the potentialfor a little bit more cloud to wales and the south—west. more so than we saw during the day today, but will not limit temperatures. we will see them soaring higher than those of today, 27 in the south—east. more widely in

the 20s for england and wales. a bit cooler north—west. no cooler than today. subtle changes as we go into friday. at the moment, we have had south—easterly winds across the uk. moraes late south—easterly winds across the uk. mora es late westerly south—easterly winds across the uk. moraes late westerly atlantic flow coming infor moraes late westerly atlantic flow coming in for friday. that means it will feel fresher for scotland and northern ireland. the risk of a few more showers come friday. in the south, mist fog. it will hang around in the english channel. again, breezes developing because of the debris to difference between inland on the coast. that will bring the low cloud or sea fog onshore from time to time, but not for all. there we can manage to see some fine weather. the high pressure is willing to shrink its grip, and more moisture could come from the atlantic, combined with high temperatures, meaning the higher risk of april showers. more sunday than saturday. that will be an interesting one. looks like usable weather. warm on saturday, as you see. come sunday, chance that

showers could turn heavier. that means a risk for the london marathon. goodbye. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: president trump says maximum pressure must be maintained on north korea until it ends its nuclear programme. bearers are bright path available to north korea —— areas are bright path available to north korea when it achieves denuclearisation in a com plete achieves denuclearisation in a complete and verifiable and irreversible way. the end of the castro era in cuba. raul prepares to step down, and the next president is named. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: moments of terror on board a us passengerjet, during which a female pilot is hailed a hero. and paradise lost.