will the reshuffle reshape the direction of her government? sainsbury‘s slogan is live well for less, the same thought as asda's — save money, live better. no wonder the two want to merge. we'll ask if it's actually a good idea for them, orfor us. also tonight — the journalist who investigated those deaths of russian mercenaries in syria was himself later found fatally injured. was his death really an accident? and on internationaljazz day, we have courtney pine. music. hello there. our politics has become pretty forgiving of huge great policy cock—ups — you don't have
to resign for wrongly detaining legal immigrants. but mislead mps, and we come down on you like a tonne of bricks. and that is why amber rudd went. she knew, or should have known, that targets were used for deportations. having said something different to a commons committee, her position became difficult to impossible. the funny thing is that although she resigned for the narrow issue of inadvertent misleading, it has cleared the decks for a far bigger review of the whole approach to immigration. with sajid javid, the new home secretary, in place, seen as more liberal than theresa may, he now has to pick up the pieces of the mess, restore decent relations with the home office staff — there's a worry some of them were briefing against amber rudd — and he has to detoxify the tory party, with a reputation damaged by windrush. let's start by talking to nick watt. let's start with theresa may because a lot of the chapter today has been, amber rudd has gone, she is now exposed. is that how it works? horwill everybody move on? she is stronger tonight
and she was last night. the feeling among tory mps is that that appointment of sajid javid will not exactly draw a line under the windrush affair but it will allow the government to open a new page. the new home secretary said he is no longer going to talk about a hostile environment for illegal migrants, he will talk about a compliant environment. but theresa may has paid a price for this. she now has a home secretary who has a record of challenging her openly in cabinet. let's ask what sort of home secretary he will be. is he someone who stands up to people? yes, he is, he tore into the prime minister after the election last year because he thought he was going to be sacked. the word i'm hearing is he is going to own this department and shape this department and one cabinet minister said to me that they hope he used at the moment of his appointment, the moment of maximum opportunity to basically tell the prime minister that she should junk the net migration target. i am told that sajid javid will take
a very, very good look at all of his department but he will abide by the tory election manifesto from last year, which means that the net migration target will be staying at least until 2022. so today i've been looking at the really tricky challenges he will be facing. on the 4th ofjune1964 my parents came to this country. i'm proud to say that they were immigrants. they had almost no money but they longed for a better life for me and my brothers. sajid javid thought he was living the british dream. will you be able to get a grip on the home office? when that dream was called into question he put his hand up and said that could have been me. a statement that clearly resonated in downing street. this morning he accepted one of the great offices of state
with a remit to repair the damage done to his fellow registry must. when i heard that people who were long—standing pillars of their community were being impacted for simply not having the right documents to prove their legal status in the uk, i thought that it could be my mum, my brother, my uncle, or even me. sajid javid likes to remind the world that he is the son of a pakistani born bus driver who came to britain in the 19605 withjust £1 in his pocket. when sadiq khan watt the london mayoral contest the new home secretary tweeted his congratulations from the son of one bus driver to another. triggering an inevitable round ofjokes. that tweet was designed to show sajid javid's anger with a tory campaign criticised for exploiting sadiq khan's background and now the new home secretary, who has not been afraid to challenge
theresa may in cabinet, is hoping to preside over a new era to win back the confidence of britain's minority communities. i want to start by making a pledge, a pledge to those from the windrush generation who have been in this country for decades and yet have struggled to navigate through the immigration system. this never should have been the case and i will do whatever it takes to put it right. and voices from both sides in parliament have high hopes for the new home secretary. sajid javid is an incredibly talented cabinet minister, i've had the privilege of working alongside him and i think his appointment to the home office is notjust that we have appointed a great individual to become home secretary but it is also another glass ceiling that has been shattered. this definitely does touch him
personally and i saw that in his work around integration where he talked about his mother's experience. so what i hope is that he brings that experience to bear on the job and initiates change. i think partly because of his background he has a license here to challenge. he can speak on these issues in a way that very few other members of that cabinet table can. baroness warsi and chuka umunna believe that sajid javid must deliver real change if he is to exploit his opportunity. i think there are a number of changes that we can introduce into our immigration system and this is the moment to do it. first of all, let's deal with the windrush tragedy, properly compensate these individuals, quickly compensate these individuals, and ensure their right to remain in the uk is regularised. it is time to move away from the obsession with numbers and get that of the target which we simply have not met despite it being in place for nearly a decade. i also think women to re—evaluate and bring back the safety net of appeals and ensure that those appeals are properly funded.
he has a massive opportunity here to turn the page and introduce a much better natured immigration debate in our country. so, dump the ridiculous net migration target which they know they are not going to meet, or at least take students out of it which is what i've been arguing for, focus a bit more on how to better integrate immigrants who come to our country, instead of attacking them and treating them in the way that long—standing immigrants like the windrush generation have been treated, including some of my own constituents. he has a big opportunity here. but sajid javid faced repeated calls in parliament not to lose sight of the importance of dealing with illegal immigration. one tory mp asked the home secretary for an assurance that he would not use windrush as a trojan horse to go soft. a new era may have been ushered in today but on some of the fundamentals such as the fight against illegal immigration, sajid javid will keep faith with theresa may. nick watt there. we're joined by barry gardiner, shadow secretary of state for international trade.
good evening to you. does this appointment sort of draw a line under this, at least for the time being. obviously they have to get on and compensate people and look after the people affected. but do we shut up about this now for a bit? no, i don't think we do because this is one aspect of where the home office is dysfunctional. there are many others. nick said that he thought that sajid would not abandon the net migration target. i think that would be a mistake. but certainly if he's not going to abandon it he should certainly take students out of it. the other area... just interrupt, but those were in the manifesto, the fact that students would stay in it and the tens of thousands
pledge was there. are you suggesting they should stop it even though it was in the manifesto? i think most people who have looked at what has been the outcome of these policies, what it has precipitated, will understand that they need to radically rethink the way in which the home office operates as a department. that does mean looking student numbers. but actually it also means looking at the bogus colleges. we are treating as immigration invaders students who have come to this country whose college was certified but the home office then the registers it and they give them 60 days to pay new fees and find another college. these are people who have been defrauded by our system, and yet the home office then treat them, if they overstayed by a day, treats them as if they are the criminal. there is a whole culture here that needs to change. the fact that students would stay in it and the tens of thousands
this is interesting. are you getting ready to open a new chapter? we have looked at the windrush cases. are you going to give us a daily or weekly another set of scandalous treatments? i hope that what the new home secretary will be doing is looking at the many good civil servants in that department and saying to them, how do we start treating people as human beings, not as statistics? how do we actually create a system that is absolutely fair, that makes sure that people who have no entitlement to be in this country are not able to stay in the country, but that those people who may be undocumented or from the system is treating with contempt because of the delays in which we put in place. those people will be treated fairly and they will actually feel that they are treated fairly. most people accept that summary is where the nation needs to be. here is the difficult question. what do you do with the people who you think, you may not know,
but you think are not here legally? i know your shadow home secretary, diane abbott, had real problems answering this this morning. what do you do? particularly if they have been here ten years, what would you do? deport, give them an amnesty? successive governments have given amnesties, i'm not advocating that, but that is some thing that has been from time to time. what we need to do is obviously you need to try and have a system that can establish who is here legally. you would have an id card or something like that? it was a policy the labour party had in 2009. theresa may, when she became home secretary, actually abolished that policy. that it would have given the government a way of knowing through the biometric id cards who was here legally and who wasn't. if you are going to set targets you should never set arbitrary targets.
you have to set targets on the basis of knowledge. this is really interesting. then you take action to make sure that this system operates fairly both for the system, people who are legally and perfectly justified and entitled to be here. it sounds like you are thinking we should have an id card and it was a mistake to wipe out the id cards because that was the only way you could tell people are meant to be here because they get here, they go and get the documents and they get a card and then you know like every other country. we need much better ways of tracking people through the system. the card people are given when they arrive here is not being effective. we also need to look at the east african asians, people from gujarat came from east africa, they have been here for many years, 40, 50 years in some cases, and some of them came as british overseas citizens as well. thank you very much, barry gardiner. sir oliver letwin, former cabinet office minister,
joins us from westminster. can i start quickly on id cards? a lot of people have them. the only way to properly find out who is meant to be here is to have a register, when you arrive, if your status is in doubt, you either get a card or don't. was it a mistake for the coalition to wipe out the id card system? i understand what you're saying. i don't think it was a particularly good idea to invent a policy on newsnight, but actually, the very same problems would arise. what we're dealing with here is the question of who is entitled to be here. and whatever the problems are in ascertaining that would arise in relation to the id cards as well. so what we need here is a change in the culture of the information policy.
we all agree that has to be immigration controls and that they have to be in force. the issue here is whether they have common sense so if it is clear to any ordinary human being that someone has been here for 40 years, you don't start with the assumption they are here illegally. you want to change the language and the tone, but it's more than just a change in the language and tone, it's the way you interact with somebody the moment you are assuming there are guilty and you're treating as tough as you can, but you want to treat them were like someone you are co—operating with? for about 20 years i have been an mp. i have been dealing with cases of people who manifestly are british, and you get the keys, you see the person in her surgery and you say, how on earth did the home office reach that decision? then you pursue it and of course we have a system of immigration tribunal is and courts and so on, and eventually, it gets sorted out. but it shouldn't have to be,
because some common sense and humanity should be applied. but there is a more fundamental point and i very much agree with what chuka and sajid were saying, underneath this there is the issue of values. i admit freely i have a vested interest in the sense that my grandparents were refugees and my parents migrated to this country, but i genuinely believe that britain has over centuries hugely benefited from migration. a great part of our society has benefited from migration but also a great part of the economy. and i am part of the guilty party, all of us over the past 20, 30 years in british politics have underplayed the advantages to our country of migration, so the argument has become unbalanced. yes, we need migration controls but we'll is a need to recognise the value of migration and we need therefore the attitude that broadly you are innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.
this is an interesting dilemma for politicians who would not put themselves in the populist camp, let's call them centrist politicians. if you face a kind of, what you perceive as a public anger about an issue, maybe uncontrolled immigration, do you fight that, or do you yield? do you say you will be a little bit ukip, or do you say we will fight you give? in a way you are saying the politicians were too weak and they should have fought rather than try to chase them a little. that it's after what i'm saying. this was as true as tony blair. i think we were too scared of, you know, ukip and its allies, and we did not make the case nearly strong enough for the value of migration. i think we paid for that, incidentally, in the brexit vote, but i think we paid for it in other ways, and now, we are paying for it
this way and actually, we really have to change the sense of the values of this thing, to get back a sense of balance, i thought that was very encouraging and how this was presented for today. then we need to change the culture of enforcement in whether parallels that, than actually the underlying policies, the rules which are perfectly reasonable can be enforced in a reasonable and humane way and we can actually have a much more balanced approach. thanks very much indeed. we will talk about a kind of reset in immigration policy later in the programme. back in 1999, there was a takeover that was meant to be a game—changer for british retailing — the us giant walmart took over asda. it was going to be transformative here, slotting asda into a global superpower. it would have buying power, and all the grit of a proven us overlord. well, that was 19 years ago but like so many takeovers, it has not delivered the much hyped promise. so now another game—changing
takeover is in the works — sainsbury‘s takeover of asda from walmart. it's easy to see why walmart might want to make a dignified retreat from its uk adventure right now — they face a stiff challenge from amazon back home, and supermarkets here have overbuilt, and face intense low price competition. but that still leaves the question for us — do we want a number two player in an important sector to take over the number three? our business editor helen thomas reports. call it asbury, call it sasda, it's certainly an unusual deal. it's about 15 years since the last big grocery merger. morrisons, then the sixth largest food retailer, bought safeway, the fourth biggest. safeway! since then the rise of the discounters has challenged the sector's giants and there's online delivery, still a small slice of the uk market, but one that holds new threats from powerful new rivals. when morrisons bought safeway the regulator was pretty clear. any deal between the biggest four supermarket groups wasn't
going to work. yes, you can sell stores at a local level to maintain customer choice but still that wouldn't alleviate concerns at the national level. sainsbury‘s and asda are betting that enough has changed in grocery shopping for the regulator to change its mind. this was the market at the beginning of 2003. the big four had two thirds of the market. aldi and lidl had barely 3% between them. and here is the latest data. the big four still have over two thirds of the market but behind them is a bigger crop of fast—growing, keenly priced rivals. as they announced the deal the supermarkets were also making their pitch to regulators. asda's relative strength in the north and sainsbury‘s in the south could mean less overlap. important for a regulator that tends to focus on concentration in local shopping areas. and savings from the deal, mainly from getting a better deal from suppliers, would be used to lower prices,
the company said, around 10% off many everyday items. but the competition and markets authority would look at the national picture as well as locally. are aldi and lidl now big enough to count as national rivals to the likes of sainsbury‘s? do their smaller stores compete for customers wanting to do a one—stop weekly shop? the cma could also look at the potential squeeze on suppliers from a bigger buyer in town, particularly where low investment could mean less innovation, or less choice for consumers. uk supermarkets have faced new rivals, tough competition and rising costs. but it's not yet clear that their traditional dominance has been shaken enough for regulators to let the biggest get bigger still. with me in the studio now are natalie berg, a retail analyst who is writing a book about amazon, and bill grimsey, who is the former chief executive of both iceland and wickes.
very good evening. natalie, why do they want to do this? well, the merger is all about scale and survival. supermarkets have seen their profit margins deteriorate recently, they face rising costs, inflation in particular has been a real headache and at the same time, they face increased competition from the likes of algae and little and increasingly amazon. so they have left us little choice. they have a tiny little bit but is not very much, is it. is amazon actually if at in the background? long—term it actually is. i think they are kind to future proof the business against amazon but you're right, at the moment amazon has a negligible share of the grocery market. but they still have a very big impact on driving change, they are making supermarkets invest in things like getting rid
of checkouts. and they have got some stores. bill, i always thought the scale thing was to satisfy chief executives like yourself. but they seem to be saying this really drives down costs. this is a defensive, not an offensive move. this really drive down costs. sainsbury's are being squeezed by a resurgent tesco, being run by very good management, and walmart have been here for 19 years, and it really has not been there a game, that is in the states, and talking about amazon, they are seriously worried about amazon in the states. so this is good for them, the geography fits, and as far as the uk is concerned, a big number one, because it will be, versus tesco, there are going to be two giants slugging it out on price and service. so do you think it will be competitive?
you will have two bigger players, one very big there, tesco, now an even bigger they are, sainsbury asda. should the competition authorities say, we are comfortable about that because two giants is enough to keep... they blew it with the tesco acquisition. to competitors. i'm sure that tesco will play that card but i can't see them getting way of this. they may well dispose of stores when there are two side by side and that kind of stuff. but this will go through late 2019 and it will be good for customers, and it will be good in the long term for the market. but it isn't going to be good for the suppliers. i was done to say that. if i was the competition authority and might be worried about customers, but you also have to worry about the suppliers, notjust the big ones,
but the smaller suppliers, should be be more worried about suppliers or customers? no, i think the customers will benefit, sainsbury said that prices will be reduced by about 10%, but it's the suppliers who will be squeezed because somebody has to pay for this price investment. sainsbury's said this morning that if you 5% of the products on their shelves come from just 100 zeballos, these are the large multinationals, procter and gamble, coca—cola, they will benefit by having additional volume by selling to both sainsbury's and asda, what of course there will be increased pressure to offer better prices. do you think the suppliers will be worried about this? will they be lobbying the cma... unquestionably they will be worried by the interesting thing was, prices were said to come down by 10%, what does he mean, in sainsbury's? are they going to line up?
there are a lot of questions to answer in terms of price. they said they will keep the two businesses trading under the current brand name. if you are in charge, would you do that? is my opinion, over three years, four years, there will be one brand. one head office, lots ofjob losses, and then dart-mac the whole point is to say. i think this is all a bit right now. in the long game, one brand, and one company. can store closures? they have been reporting they have just invested too much, basically. they have overexpanded. they did and they said this morning there would not be any store closures, but of course it will be a requirement from the regulatory commission because they both went into this agreement with the understanding that there would have to be significant number of store disposals. also i think it is somewhat of a mission of the oversupply
of retail space that we have on the high street so in a sense it's not such a bad thing for them to dispose of these stores. interesting to see where it will all go. thank you very much. two weeks ago, a russian investigative journalist called maxim borodin died. somehow, he had fallen from his apartment window in the russian city of yekaterinburg in the urals. the suggestion was that he had killed himself — he was only 32 — or that it was an accident. but there are real concerns that neither of those explanations are correct. you see, it so happens, mr borodin had investigated an interesting and inconvenient story about the death of russian mercenaries in syria. and on top of that, he had called a friend just hours before, to say that there were "armed men on the balcony" and "people on the stairs in camouflage and masks". it is a strange and sad story.
john sweeney has been trying to piece together what is known about the death. did he fall or was he pushed? officially in russia, maxim borodin fell out of the window of his flat. either suicide or an accident. officially this is a nonstory about an accidental death of a journalist. officially there is no question of foul play. the last person we can find who spoke to borodin alive was his friend, vyacheslav bashkov. he got an alarming phone call at 5am. his girlfriend, yulia fedotova, received a disturbing text. then max borodin changed his tune big—time. too much paranoia? his girlfriend, yulia fedotova, received a disturbing text. then max borodin changed his tune big—time. too much paranoia?
what happens in the next 36 hours of max borodin‘s life is, according to his closest friends, a mystery. we've tried hard, but we cannot account for the time between six o'clock in the morning on the 11th and some time in the evening of the 12th, when max borodin is reportedly found at the bottom of his block of flats in a coma. he died on the 15th.
is it possible that his journalism got him into trouble? in february, borodin made this report. this footage appears to show russian mercenaries in syria under attack from the americans. borodin interviewed this woman, yelena, widow of stanislav matveev, a russian mercenary killed in that attack on february 7th. the footage has been widely shown in russia, but newsnight has established it's fake, from a computer game. the images were wrong, but the attack did happen. in syria now a handful of weeks ago the russians met their match, a couple of hundred russians were killed. the grieving widow was all too real and this audio tape of matveev‘s commander appears authentic too. he survived the attack.
the cost in blood of russia's military adventures in syria is not something the kremlin wants publicised. the russian mercenaries killed in syria worked for an outfit called wagner, reportedly controlled by this man, yevgeny prigozhin, known as putin's cook. he's a former gangster turned billionaire. he's on the us sanction list for running a troll farm, accused of interfering in the american presidential election. borodin‘s reporting on russians dying in syria would not have
made him popular with the master of the kremlin, or his cook. but there's no evidence connecting them to borodin‘s death. his girlfriend believes it was probably an accident. his friend bashkov doubts suicide and accident. could it have been foul play? the authorities have now concluded that there was no foul play. it's possible that they are right.
but those 36 hours before max borodin fell to earth are deeply troubling. john swinney there. let us return to the comings and goings at the home office. one of the interesting things about the last two weeks is how it conflicts with the usual story on immigration — that the public don't like it. the hostile environment policy was apparently designed to appease public hostility to immigration, but seeing it in action, and catching long—term residents and citizens at that, the public don't seem happy with it all. does this mean there will now be a rethink of immigration policy? i'm joined by sunder katwala, director of british future, who have been doing a lot of work with focus groups on immigration. and ella whelan, an author and columnist at spiked. you wrote a kind of letter to the new home secretary today and said it is time for a reset, sunder, what did you mean by that? it should be a reset moment for immigration, we had a reset moment
with the referendum vote which was a wake—up call and then the wind rushed scandal i think again makes people think about it. the thing about it reset moment is some body has to press the button and the government has been delaying and ducking in a way because it is a complicated issue, what to do after brexit, they are actually running away from the fear that it's very difficult and the public will be very angry when we make them make choices, a lack of confidence in engaging the public and become the session we should be happy now. you have been having conversations and we will come back to that. do you think politicians have got public opinion wrong? i think probably theresa may has felt all along she is serving what the public want. i think they have got it wrong, it's clear they have got it wrong. the whole approach to immigration for years now has been a kind of tick box technocratic attitude with no kind of consultation or political thought in the air of what actually is it the population want. some fascinating figures came out about the facts, the numberof over65 is who were appalled by the windrush scandal, which completely flies in the face of this myth that old brexiteers are racist,
the political class seems to think that british voters are hostile to immigration, racist, want some crazy kind of clamp—down and in something like windrush we have been proven that it is absolutely wrong. reset is understating it, we need a rethink. you have been around the country, have you? we have had 60 citizen panels everywhere from penzance to shetland and everywhere in between. you get different conversations around the country but people think there are pressures on public services and issues with the economy but they want more control. and then they want decency and compassion as well. it's the toughest people who are angriest about the treatment of the windrush group. especially on illegal immigration, specifically, people have a very narrow category, clandestinely entry, people clinging to the back of lorries and they are worried about that.
you give them real cases of people and then they apply values of we want rules, decency, humanity, does this person have roots here? the public not as tough as some politicians thought. we got some clear messages from the public that the brexit boat show people wanted an end to freedom of movement, the big public conversation about immigration that doesn't just slander people as bigoted and racist the moment they use the i word, and the home office needs to quickly and clearly give compensation to anyone who has been... who has been maltreated. who has had a horrendous time as a result of this. the key thing is the political class doesn't know what we want as voters, or is not listening. we said this at the brexit vote and you said it as well, we need to have a conversation about immigration, no holds barred, lets people say what they think. that is what sunder is doing.
let's get onto specifics, the target of tens of thousands, dismissed by most members of the cabinet, you are in favour of that? i am very much for a very open and liberal immigration system. it is notjust your personal view but you are trying to work with where the public is as well. do you think a target helps or does it undermine immigration policy by constantly not being met? that's the thing, it has constantly not been met and they are kind of like numbers in the sky. we need to have a system that says, what is it that we can handle and what we want? i think it should be as fair as open as possible. to put weight on the idea of being a citizen and part of a nation state, notjust being a number but being part of something gets lost in this technocratic babble. i think we would have set targets,
not a one size fits all target and they wouldn't set a number you can never meet. once they have decided to do it, what you end up now is you end up turning down nhs trusts who have doctors they desperately need to do it, sorry it's because of the target. the public don't really mind. it is absolutely crazy. and also care homes lower down the skill set. people want to know why people are coming as well as how many. the public are open to skilled migration, i think they do want an ability to control the pace of low—end semiskilled immigration and if you strike that balance you would be in the right place with the public. where would you be on it post—brexit? put something on the table in the negotiations. it looks like they are talking about some kind of labour mobility partnership. if you want a special partnership, make an offer and say we are happy for skilled european immigration, we could have special rules
for europeans if there is a deal to be made. we would like controls on low—end semiskilled europeans can take the jobs first. we don't know what the europeans would do but that would strike the right balances across the referendum cross parties for the british public. you haven't got to seve you can negotiate a deal that is good for britain. we have to leave there. thank you. now we can have a quick look at the papers for tomorrow. the times, using the same picture we started with, of sajid javid standing astride outside the home office. end of hostile era for illegal immigrants. exactly the same on the guardian front page, sajid javid steps into the breach. the daily mirror, mayday, mayday, mounting pressure on the pm to resign over windrush, says the mirror. the daily telegraph meeting on benyamin netanyahu calling the iranians liars on breaching the terms of the iran nuclear deal. that's almost it for tonight. but before we go, ahead of his appearance at the cheltenham jazz festival this friday — we leave you with a performance from courtney pine. this is a change is sure to come — that's not an opinion in relation to our last discussion,
it's a track from his new album black notes from the deep. he's accompanied on piano by robert mitchell. goodnight. music: a change is sure to come by courtney pine. applause good evening. beautiful music. will be get beautiful weather for the bank holiday weekend? we had it today at the west. beautiful blue
sky and sunshine. a different story across the south—east. essex and kent, the coast. a month's across the south—east. essex and kent, the coast. a months worth of rain in 2a hours. 50 miles per hour winds. but temperatures will fall to low single figures in some places. a chilly start in some areas. but some sunshine. a lovely start to the morning for many of us. for the east of the uk, it will stay like that. the wind strengthens, cloud from the west. rain in scotland by the end of the afternoon. the highest values in
the afternoon. the highest values in the south—east, they will feel much better than today. tuesday and in the wednesday, the cloud and rain will gather and moving from the west. some will continue to be quite heavy for a time. a wet start for england and wales. a slow improvement in the afternoon. sunny skies. the wind will become a north—westerly. a fresh feel for the early half of may. 9—12. things are looking promising for the end of the week. high pressure building from the south—west. before that, this frontal system will go into northern ireland and perhaps western scotland. showery outbreaks of rain. some cloud. temperatures peaking at 53 fahrenheit. that is a sign of things more mild. high pressure builds and the wind becomes south—westerly. that will push mild
air across the country. looking promising for the bank holiday weekend to be a decent amount of dry weather across the country. it could peak at 22 degrees in the south—east corner, give better mind if you are plans for the long weekend. —— keep that in mind. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: israel's prime minister reveals what he says is new and conclusive proof that iran had a secret nuclear weapons programme. vatican treasurer cardinal george pell is hours away from learning if he will stand trial for historical sex abuse charges in australia. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: after one of the worst days of violence in afghanistan this year, funerals are taking place for some of those killed. and how authorities in new zealand