government 2017? anotherfine mess... or two. the government's coping, or striving to cope, with one mishap after another. is it really capable of driving the country into a new brexit era? we'll analyse two separate controversies involving cabinet ministers. the foreign secretary and the development secretary. i think the problem is you've now got five cabinet ministers, the former defence secretary, the current defence secretary, the foreign secretary, the development secretary and the first secretary, all now mired in serious controversies of one form or another. and in each case, the prime minister unable to get a grip on it and unable to provide the sense of direction. we'll be asking if yet another minister could be gone by the morning. and we'll ask if the government can get itself back on track. also tonight, prince charles lobbied for a change in carbon trading rules — without pointing out that the duchy of cornwall had invested in a company that stood to benefit. we'll ask a former chairman of the committee of standards in public life why he thinks that's a problem. we'll have a special report about what the paradise papers have revealed in angola. oil money, which might have been used to help some of the poorest people in the world, has ended up making one man super rich. although the border is onlyjust
there, where those signs are, a couple of hundred yards, it's not an easy place forjournalists to go. particularly when the subject of our investigation is the son of the president and someone very close to him. hello. accidents happen in government. people slip on banana skins. there are momentary lapses, or arguments that spill into the public domain. events can catch cabinets by surprise. that's normal. at a rate of one every few months. but then there's this government. since the election knocked the confidence out of the prime ministerfive months ago, to many it has just lurched from one self—inflicted wound to another. public arguments over brexit are half of it, the harassment cases have piled on the pressure. but the coincidence of extra missteps has given this government a whiff of decay. and you're not meant to have that until you've been in power for a decade or more. two particular things are exercising many mps right now. the foreign secretary giving the unhelpful impression that a british woman imprisoned in iran is guilty of crimes there. and the other is development secretary priti patel, who clearly tried to mislead the public about her activities in israel. this is a far more intense speculation this evening. an unlucky government, or a careless one. nick watt reports.
day by day, piece by piece, the forces holding this government together are fracturing. there is an unmistakable air of weakness and fragility, as theresa may struggles to assert her authority. you've now got five cabinet ministers — the former defence secretary, the current defence secretary, the foreign secretary, the development secretary, and the first akrotiri, all now mired in serious controversies of one form or another. and in each case, the prime minister is unable to get a grip of it and unable to provide a sense of direction. and today, downing street was mopping up after not one but two cabinet ministers gave the prime minister grief of a highly sensitive security issues. we are going to work flat—out. it took borisjohnson nearly an hour in the commons chamber to offer an apology for the loose language which may have added to the prison sentence in teheran handed down to the british—iranian woman nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe. i'm sorry if any words of mine have been so taken out of context and misconstrued as to cause any kind of anxiety for the family of nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe, of course i am. of course i am.
shortly before the foreign secretary's appearance, one of prydie patel‘s deputies had to explain why she held a series of official meetings in israel during her summer holiday without first notifying the foreign office or downing street. the secretary of state has been very clear and absolutely contrite in her statement yesterday. she recognises that of course she sure to have informed the foreign office before the visit, but she didn't. downing street is doing little to disguise its frustration with the two wayward cabinet ministers. in the eyes of many ministers, borisjohnson and priti patel have both lived down expectations. the foreign secretary has caused heartache for the family of nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe with his careless language, whilst the international development secretary has shown that even in the world of high diplomacy,
she believes she can live by her own rules. the wider question is, there is no sense of direction, no sense of grip in any of these controversies coming from the prime minister, at a time when we really need a functioning cabinet and this affects our reputation around the world when we have such important international negotiations at stake. this is really damaging for the whole country, notjust for the conservative party. even loyal mps believe this has not been the goverment‘s finest hour. i've got to be honest about it, neither of these scenarios are ideal. prydie patel, from what i can gather, did inform the foreign office, albeit whilst she was in israel on this visit. but in relation to the foreign secretary cosme comments, i'm not here to defend those comments. i think, you know, it is tricky and difficult to do that. what i think we should remember, though, is that the real criminals here are the iranian regime
who are holding somebody, you know, against all natural justice, for the average over foreign countries. battered by events and headstrong cabinet ministers, theresa may's government limps on. for the moment, it is intact. but the damage is taking its toll. nick watt there. accidents don't happen, they are caused, the old phrase goes. nick watt is with me now. next, it's been a bad day for boris johnson. but a much worse one for priti patel, we gather, this evening. quite a lot of speculation about her future. that's right. she is still the international developer and secretary. she recently arrived in the next few hours to africa for a long planned trip. but some very, very serious questions are being asked in the heart of government about priti patel and what actually she declared for this trip to israel.
and priti patel will be very, very lucky if she is still in the gambit micro by the end of this week. i think the thinking is —— if she is still in the cabinet. if new details emerged about this visit, perhaps elements of this trip that she didn't declare fully to the prime minister, i think she will no longer be a member of the cabinet. that information has not yet been presented, it is not yet there are, as i understand it, at the highest levels of government. but they are thinking that if there is more information that wasn't the clare... can use tag a cabinet minister whilst they are overseas on official business, what happens? —— can you sack a cabinet minister. there would be a discussion between said, by criminals than the premise that, as i understand it. that information is not sitting in downing street, and it may not get there, but bit by bit more information is coming out. for example, the prime minister did not know, until our bbc colleaguejames landale revealed on the today programme this morning, that priti patel tried to change
government policy on the golan heights. she saw the work that the israeli defence forces are doing in helping syrian refugees who come onto the golan heights. the uk government says the idf is doing very, very serious work. but of course, as alistair burt, her ministerial colleagues, said in the commons today, the uk can't help the israeli defence forces because the uk has never recognised the israeli annexation of the goal of heights. that sort of thing, there is more information that comes out, then it will be very difficult for her —— the annexation of the golan heights. in a few minutes, we'll talk to labour's tulip siddiq. nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe is her constituent. she is currently injail in iraq, very important set of questions for borisjohnson —— in iran. but first, the conservative mp nadhim zahawi is here. he is a member of the foreign affairs select committee. good evening to you. i'm assuming you think it's not
possible to remain a secretary of state if you have lied and misled the public on this matter was ill and priti patel was on a family holiday paid for by herself. she met ministers as well as many charities and some very interesting start—ups who are, you know, working in africa, which she is passionate about. she is in africa now. she took a working break. she is a workaholic, that is what she is like. the foreign office knew that whilst the trip was ongoing... they found out she was visiting... i think her apology, she was contrite about not going through the right procedures. because you need to make sure that you do that. i didn't focus on the offence of breaking the ministerial code by going to israel and conducting your own foreign policy,
i was focusing on the misleading of the public. she said, boris knew about the visit. the point is, the foreign office did know about this, boris knew about the trip. in fact, yesterday we were told he did become aware of it, but not in advance. now, wouldn't you say that she was misleading the public, or even lying, when she said that boris did know about the trip? well, that was her interview with the guardian. the guardian subsequently corrected that published every interview that she had. there was another set of misleading... she said, the stuff is out there, the stuff that is out there is it as far as i'm concerned. she hadn't at that stage mentioned that she had met the israeli prime minister on her holiday, you know, as one does. did that slip her mind, or was she trying to mislead when she said that the stuff that is out there is it as forestry is concerned with the well, i think what we know already is that she had those meetings, the foreign office knew
during her trip that those meetings... i'm talking about the way that she tried to mislead the public. do you think misleading the public is a sackable offence or not brazil and she apologised to the prime minister, and corrected all of that with a statement. you know, i think those things... hang on, she apologised or corrected herself after it was discovered. she didn't correct it and say, by the way, i've accidentally misled you. if effectively, she came out when it was all in the public domain. doesn't that mean what she was doing was trying to get away with minimising her breach of the ministerial code, quite a serious one, and then, when she is caught, she says, sorry, i miss spoke. that is a sackable offence, isn't it? beverley hughes in 2004 went through a similar thing. peter mandelson in the hindu decays, you didn't like he was is, rated, —— he didn't lie, he was exonerated, but people thought that he had lied and he had to resign. you are talking about these cases. israel is one of our
closest partners. this is not an enemy state that she was somehow having clandestine meetings with. the foreign office knew during this trip that she was having these visits. she has admitted the mistake of not following procedure and apologised for it. i somehow feel that some of this stuff is being drummed up because both priti patel and the foreign secretary of big beasts in the brexit campaign and there are remembers if you think, if we can take out these people and israel by —— derail the government... i will bring in tulip siddiq on this one. nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe is a constituent of yours. how damaging the comments that boris johnson made? extremely damaging. my constituent has been imprisoned in iran for 18 years now. she's been in solitary confinement, separated from her baby daughter and denied access to medical treatment. borisjohnson, in front of the select committee, even though i have raised this case countless times in the last 18 months, and repeatedly said that my constituent was on holiday in iran, said that she was training journalists.
i would expect our foreign secretary to know that basic facts of a very important case. his actual words were, he said, she was simply teaching people journalism, as i understand it, at the very limit. his defence is, he was saying, at the worst she was teaching journalism and even that doesn't justify putting him injail. i wonder if those words at the limit get him off, because he was meaning to say something along the lines of, you know, that's not my view, that's the view, and is not a dust of a geisha. —— not a justification. that is absolutely not a good defence in my opinion. —— his words have been seized upon
by the iranian judiciary system. if you look on their website, they have said that this shows clearly that this woman was not on holiday in iran. as a result, she could be facing fresh charges against her. we on this side of the world, especially the foreign secretary, should be getting our constituent back here at home in west hampstead, not increasing the charges against her. i'll tell you what i'd like, we've only got another minute, i'd like to get a comment from you both on whether this multiple sort of issues around harassment, borisjohnson, the foreign secretary, priti patel, is telling us there is some decay in this government. tulip, is it a bigger vulnerability for this government? i think it shows the government is weak. the prime minister needs to take action quickly. but my focus this week is bringing my constituent back home, and the foreign secretary needs to retract his statement, fly out to iran, meet her, and bring her back to her house,
where she belongs. a lot of people, even friends of the party, they are saying, we can't have five years of this, this just can't go wild. i think the prime minister has been very thoughtful in her speech to the cbi this week —— this can't go on. it was well received by the cbi. on boris, he has apologised and called his counterpart and sought reassurances. his words weren't in any way affecting nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe. i'm glad julep wants to focus on higher, we should put herfront and centre of this. i'm sad that the front bench on the other side were giggling as soon as emily thornberry finished her speech. you know, making political hay out of this. this will only encourage the ir gc, who was a real culprits, remember who the culprits are. they will enjoy this. the man is foreign secretary of our country. he should not be repeating them mendacious comments made by the iranian revolutionary guard,
which is what he was doing in the select committee. he should know better. we need to leave it there. thank you so much. we could talk a great deal longer about this. a former member of the welsh government who resigned last week in light of allegations made against him has been found dead. he is understood to have taken his own life. carl seargent lost his job as cabinet secretary for communities and children last friday. he was suspended from labour after the first minister, carwynjones, learned of a number of alleged incidents involving women. the death has obviously been a great shock to members of the welsh assembly, who suspended proceedings this afternoon. chris cook reports. there was rare consensus today in cardiff bay and throughout labour. sadness at the death of carl sargeant who is believed to have taken his own life. the former welsh cabinet minister left his post last week pending
an investigation into his conduct. shocked, horrified and deeply sympathetic to his family and the statement they put out was that he was the glue that held them altogether and i can only think for the moment of the stress and horror they are going through. he was somebody who represented our party, worked hard to represent community and my deepest sympathies are with them. carl sargeant held a range of post since being elected in 2003 culminating in a cabinet post for communities and children. he had been a member of the welsh government for ten years, he served as chief whip and then held a variety of sensitive political roles and i think it is fair to say that half the legislation roughly passed in the last six years would have been passed through his hands, some quite ground—breaking stuff around domestic violence and future generations. last week carl sargeant agreed to stand down from the welsh cabinet while labour investigated
allegations about his behaviour. carwynjones, the first minister, explained i asked by office to speak to the women involved to provide details of those incidents. as a result of the conversations ifelt i had no choice but to refer the matter to the party." the family asked me to speak on their behalf today. they do not want to dwell on the allegations that were made against him but clearly those have had an impact on his mental state in recent days and all of us who have been in contact with him have been worried. friends, comrades, first of all a big thank you... we have heard concerns from high up within welsh labour about the treatment of carl sargeant why the claims were investigated. friends say that this morning he only knew the outline of the allegations. carl sargeant is survived by a widow and two children. chris kirk. over the last few days, we've had
stories about lewis hamilton, lord ashcroft and the queen, all thrown up by the leak of the so—called "paradise papers" — documents which were obtained by the german newspaper sueddeutsche zeitung and shared with the international consortium of investigativejournalists. the reporting has been led in the uk by bbc panorama and the guardian newspaper. there is no doubt as to which of today's paradise papers stories is getting most of the attention: it is the one about prince charles, an undisclosed investment in a sustainable forestry company, and some active campaigning for its interests. now, in contrast to the revelations about the queen's investments in bermuda, there was here a potential conflict of interest in the public work of the prince, and the private holdings. it was february, 2007 that the duchy of cornwall bought shares in a bermuda company called sustainable forestry management, sfm, for $113,500. it sold the shares 16 months later for almost three times the price. nothing wrong with that, it was clearly a lucrative investment. it was also an unsurprising investment, since the prince himself
is said to be actively involved in running the duchy. one of his best friends, the late hugh van cutson was on the board of the company and it touched on a subject that was obviously dear to his heart, but interestingly, it was all kept very hush—hush. the board unanimously agreed that the subscription by the duchy of cornwall can be kept confidential except in respect of any disclosure required by law. documents say. ok, so no one wanted to publicise his involvement. there followed a number of public interventions, including this. the immediate priority, i believe, is the need to develop a new credit market, which will give a true value to carbon and the ecosystem services that rainforests provide the rest of the world. other speeches went further, specifically on an issue that mattered to the company, sfm.
it's complex, but it was whether the market in carbon credits created under eu rules and the kyoto protocol should recognise pay—outs for the preservation of tropical rainforests. not only did this matter to sfm, but the company prepared lobbying papers for the prince. who spoke to the european commission and the european parliament, obviously no mep listening to him would have been allowed to make such a pitch without disclosing the financial interest in it. no mp here would be either. should the prince be able to? should his investments be kept secret and should he be lobbying anyway? in response to the story, clarence house said... they added...
joining me now from leeds is the former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, sir alistair graham. good evening to you. can you explain the conflict of interest you referred to earlier today as regards this case? i believe the conflict is that if any public official or in this case a member of the royal family decides to lobby on an issue, then they should have a duty to declare any financial interest they have in the issue that they are lobbying about, which did not happen in this case. i think a lot of people would say that prince charles would very likely have lobbied on an issue like that because he takes such an interest in things like sustainable forests and it is perfectly logical that he would lobby out without having a financial investment.
i do not see why a member of the royal family should be different from any public official who signs up to the seven principles of public life, which very clearly spell out that if you have got a financial interest, you have to declare that. there has to be total transparency about your interests in a matter that you are trying to influence public policy, so i don't see why a member of the royal family should be different to any other public official. if they want to seek to change government or international policy. would you like the code to be extended to members of the royal family or would you rather say, we should not need a code for the royal family, they should just know this kind of thing of what works and what does not and they should be automatically above all that anyway? you would expect members of the royal family to have the highest possible ethical standards in these matters and of course normally most members of the royal family do not get involved in public policy issues, however, prince charles has a history of doing that and i personally have no objection
in that, but if in fact he wants to continue, then i think he does have to meet the standards that are required of every other public official and that means i accept that he does not direct what his financial investment is, but before he speaks on a policy, he should check with his officials with the duchy of cornwall about whether they have any investments that would put him in an embarrassing conflict situation. we do not know whether he knew he had money invested in this company but we do know that his friend who was a director had written to him with some of this lobbying material that was making
the case for this change in carbon trading. even if he did not know he had the investment, merely on the grounds that his friend had given him some lobbying material without the conflict of interest in itself? i think a potentially could be, because you're open to the charge or the perception that you are pursuing someone else's argument rather than necessarily your own. but i do think the crucial thing in this particular instance was not the lobbying documents but the timing of the lobbying was shortly after the investment. and therefore, there was bound to be, if the information became public, a perception of a conflict of interests. and i would have thought prince charles being a man of highest integrity would have seen that that would be an embarrassing situation and he should have checked whether there was any investment that produced a potential conflict. thank you forjoining us. now, without diminishing any revelations contained in the paradise papers relating to the royals, the super rich, tv stars
or vat—avoiding racing drivers, it may be that we are giving too little attention to another side of this world of offshore finance. it's one that has massive implications for the citizens of countries far poorer than ours, because in this leak of documents we can see how it's possible to take revenues or resources that belong to poor nations and expropriate them for private use. our reporter david grossman has been one of the international team ofjournalists examining the paradise papers, and has been looking specifically at the management of angola's sovereign wealth fund. it is designed help develop the country and provide a future income when the country's oil reserves run out. it appears though that the level of management fees charged and the choice of investments is making one individual close to the angolan regime a great deal of money. music. angola manages a curious double. its capital, luanda, is officially the most expensive city in the world to visit.
but the country is one of the poorest. one reason for this is corruption. investigating the financial interests of angola's rulers is usually an impossible task. although the border‘s onlyjust over there where those signs are, a couple of hundred yards from here, it's not an easy place forjournalists to go, particularly when the subject of our investigation is the son of the president and somebody very close to him. fortunately, though, we've got a huge pile of leaked data — sensitive financial information that throws a window open into that closed world. althouthose eduardo dos santos stood down as president after 38 years in the summer, it was to his chosen successor. many believe the move was more about preserving power, not handing it over. in angola, power comes from money, and money comes from oil. and while he was in office, president dos santos ruthlessly controlled that well.
his daughter, isabel, known as africa's richest woman, with an estimated wealth of $3.5 billion, was, at the stroke of her father's pen, made head of the state oil company, sonangol. his son, jose filomeno dos santos, known as zenu, was appointed to another position — again, by the president. $5 billion of oil money was placed in a sovereign wealth fund, the fundo soberano de angola, or fsdea. and zenu was put in charge. the process was not transparent according to normal standards anywhere in the world. but what was transparent for the people of angola was that the only criteria why he was selected, it was because he was the son of the president. he had no training, no experience, no special qualifications. the fund appointed a company called quantum global to manage its money. it is majority—owned byjean—claude bastos,
a swiss—angolan businessman who is a close friend and at that time was a business partner of zenu. we see only one asset management firm in charge of the vast majority of the fund's assets. that's unusual. and it's unusual for a number of reasons. and the principal one is that funds want to hedge the risk. you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. you want to spread your eggs over a number of baskets. in general, the angolan fund, and i think this is true of a lot of the funds that sort of score poorly on transparency and accountability indicators, one of the things that they have in common is the lack of rules around who the managers are, how the managers are chosen, and what assets the fund can invest in and what it can't invest in. we asked fsdea how quantum global was selected as the main investment manager. no one wanted to be interviewed for this programme. but in a statement, they said... mr bastos also told us... mr bastos first applied to manage the money from jersey.
but the authorities there thought he was too close to the president's son to be independent. we've seen the internal report into his application, which also noted... mr bastos turned to another island to manage the fund's investments. mr bastos first applied to manage the money from jersey. but the authorities there thought he was too close to the president's son to be independent. we've seen the internal report into his application, which also noted... mr bastos turned to another island to manage the fund's investments.
where it once farmed sugar, mauritius now farms money. it's an offshore tax haven. and it's here that mr bastos left three of the $5 billion to invest in seven funds he created. using the services of the law firm appleby, based in this building in port louis, mr bastos set up quantum global investment management. appleby, as you may have seen in the news, suffered a huge data leak of highly sensitive information, revealed this week. the leak was obtained by the german newspaper suddeutsche zeitung, who shared it with the international consortium of investigative journalists. the bbc has been researching it, along with the guardian newspaper. for the last nine months, we've been putting together information from the leak with publicly available sources, and talking to insiders. as a result, we have managed
to piece together much of what's going on inside the management of the sovereign wealth funds money. the first thing to look at is the management fees quantum global was paid for managing the seven mauritius—based funds. between 2% and 2.5% of the $3 billion every year. injust 20 months, the company was paid $92 million. over this time, most of that money was not invested, but sat in bank accounts. at the end of 2015, qgiam had invested just $407 million of the $7 billion. at the end of 2016, that figure had gone up to $433 million. in other words, during 2016, an additional $26 million was invested by the seven funds. over this period, quantum global was paid around $70 million in fees. so, what we see in that case... is that unheard—of?
no. the question i'd be asking is, is the angolan fund getting its value for money? if you are making... if you're paying those types of management fees, you must be getting extraordinary service for that. and if i were the angolan fund managers, i would be asking, are we getting an extraordinary service or not? both mr bastos and the funds say the management fees are reasonable. what happened to them, though, may, according to industry insiders, be an indication that they were set too high. because of the leak, we can see that $41 million of the $92 million of management fees was paid out as dividends. in other words, it was profit. it went to a company called qg investments limited in the british virgin islands. this is owned by white nite limited, also in the british virgin islands. which is owned by green trees incorporated, in the seychelles. and this company is owned by mr bastos. of the rest, $34 million was paid to another company, quantum global alternative investments. part of the quantum global group
of which mr bastos is the majority owner. so, the documents that i saw reveal a complex financial structure. but they reveal a complex financial structure which doesn't, on the face of it, seem illegal, but highly opaque, that allows somebody who wants to hide gains that they are making, perhaps inappropriately, shall we say, rather than illicitly, hide those gains and hide who owns what company and who is receiving what payments. the videos on mr bastos's personal youtube channel portray a dynamic entrepreneur with many financial interests. go out as you are a dreamer and follow your dreams. be courageous, and do not give up. so, what did mr bastos invest the sovereign wealth fund's money in? during the 20 months covered by the leak, we can see evidence
that he made six investments in hotels and infrastructure. but three of the investments were in projects in which mr bastos has a personal stake. for example, there is a $157 million hotel complex in angola's capital, luanda. it is to be built on land owned by mr bastos, and by a company owned by mr bastos. we have spoken to an insider with knowledge of the deal, who told us that quantum global appointed independent analysts to go over the deal. they concluded it wasn't a good one for the angolan people's money. the projected returns were too low, and the costs too high. and yet, the investment was approved. so, the difference between private equity and venture capitalism... mr bastos clearly knows a lot about making money. but what's not clear is why a man who was prosecuted in switzerland, a man with a web of complex financial interests, was given the opportunity to make what appears, from this leak at least, to be so much money from the angolan people's fund?
this is a balance of cash being carried into bank accounts in switzerland. this is fees being charged here, earnings being made there, to benefit, it would appear, one particular individual. why is he in this favoured position? what connections does he have? where does the money go onward from him and from his companies? at this stage, certainly from documents i've seen, we don't know. but there will clearly be some other connection thatjustifies him being in the position that he is in. mr bastos, though, insisted that the hotel investment was viable. he denied there was any conflict of interest, saying... the fsdea told us... meanwhile, in luanda,
where a man skims a flooded crater for the mosquito larvae which causes yellow fever, malaria and zika, it's not hard to see where the money could be spent. this hospital in cazenga is overwhelmed by patients. some have had to buy their own drugs and equipment from hawkers outside. these are the people the angolan sovereign wealth fund is supposed to be helping. david grossmanjoins me now. david, you've been working a couple of months on that piece from the paradise papers. but evidence that this isn't the only story of this kind. this angle the case. no, indeed. we focused a lot on these jurisdictions and the impact on the super—rich, when actually it may be that they have more impact on the super bowl, particularly in developing countries that maybe, like angola, resource rich but lack of expertise and capital to exploit those resources.
in many cases, they invite in multinationals, and those companies find that multinationals are very good at shifting profit out of the company so they do not pay tax, and into offshore jurisdictions. i visited namibia as part of an investigation for the bbc world service assignment programme and radio 4, and i found that even though it has the richest fishing waters in that part of the world and on the planet, the finance minister told me they cannot make enough on taxing fishing to pay for the furniture of the fishing industry, the regulation, the patrol boats. one of the people that we met told us there is a vast sinkhole down which africa's tax revenues are disappearing, that is the jurisdiction of mauritius. thank you. time now for viewsnight — where we give original thinkers the space to get something off their chest.
and in the run up to remembrance sunday, tonight's contributor, prospect magazine's stephanie boland, has this on wearing the poppy. stephanie boland for viewsnight. let's take a quick look with nick on the latest on priti patel, what is the latest? the international development secretary will be having a very awkward phone conversation with the prime minister in the morning. as i understand it, there is a feeling in whitehall that there was at least one extra meeting that priti patel did not tell the prime minister she had had with israeli officials after she came back from israel in august. she did not, it is alleged, told the prime minister about this on monday when she met her. the feeling from number ten is that if more information comes out and they will have to take a very, very careful look. a very difficult conversation tomorrow morning, i'm told. clearly a moving story there. that is all we have time for tonight. i suspect that we will return to that tomorrow. in the meantime, good night. let me show you something very
interesting. in the last few hours oi’ interesting. in the last few hours or $0 interesting. in the last few hours or so these guys across northern britain have lit up. look at these spectacular pictures from the outer hebrides. this is the aurora borealis. and we have some more stunning pictures here from cumbria as well. it is the charged particles racing across the galaxy in the direction of birth and encountering oui’ direction of birth and encountering our atmosphere. so that is pretty spectacular in the north. of course, the guys have cleared. it is not the case across east anglia and the south—east. at the solar system, not the galaxy, let's not go overboard.
we have minus four degrees on the forecast, at least in the countryside. we will not get that in the city centres, but it will be chilly. it won't be so frosty across east anglia and the south—east. this is where we will have temperatures around seven degrees. look at that, evenin around seven degrees. look at that, even in the frosty bits in towns and cities is three or four degrees. it will mostly be outside of town where some of us will have to scrape car windows. a bit of mist around. but catchily it is in the north, zero in carlisle. inverness at two degrees. in the highlands it will be very frosty. there are three areas of weather on wednesday. we have this dutiful bit of fine weather across central parts of the uk. we still have cloud and maybe some drizzly rain across the south—east. the next weather front moves into north—western areas of the uk. this isa north—western areas of the uk. this is a weather front that is going to bring a lot of cloud night into thursday. wednesday night into thursday, that will not be frosty. a lot of cloud around. the weather
front lot of cloud around. the weather fro nt m oves lot of cloud around. the weather front moves out of the way. on thursday it should you a dry day. look at these temperatures, possibly getting up to 14 degrees in the south—west, above average for this time of year. towards the end of the week the basic message i want to conveyis week the basic message i want to convey is that basically there will be lots of weather systems coming in off the atlantic. thursday into friday and early saturday, lots is happening on the web up, but suffice to say it will be unsettled. —— weather. on saturday we are in the clear, a strong northerly wind on the chilly side. if you already thinking about the weekend it will bea thinking about the weekend it will be a bright and breezy one with a few showers, and it is going to feel on the chilly side because of those northerly winds. if the aurora borealis is still out of air, catch some of those pictures and send them in. —— out there. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: fire and fury, or let's do a deal? donald trump is expected
to outline his policy on north korea in a speech to the national assembly in the south. the death toll in vietnam rises to more than 80, after typhoon damrey causes the worst flooding the country has seen in years. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: new details about the gunman who killed 26 people at a church in texas. police reports show he escaped from a mental health clinic in 2012. and british vogue strikes a different pose. the first edition under its new editor focuses on issues of diversity.