from the nuclear deal with iran. ignoring the pleas of some his closest allies, he called the agreement a horrible deal that should never have been done and he said he would impose the highest possible level of sanctions against tehran. in response, the iranian president, hassan rouhani, ordered his officials to be ready to restart the enrichment of uranium at industrial levels. but he added that he would reach out to the other signatories of the deal to keep it in place. efforts are underway to strike a different nuclear deal — this time with north korea. after meeting china's president xi, kim jong—un's set for more talks with us secretary of state, mike pompeo, who's just arrived in pyongyang. the meeting paves the way for a summit with president trump in the coming weeks. now on bbc news it's time for a look at the day in parliament. hello, and welcome to the programme.

coming up: peers inflict a string of defeats on the government on the eu withdrawal bill. and tempers fray. if anybody is undermining the government at the moment, it is the foreign secretary rubbishing the prime minister! senior civil servants face tough questioning over the windrush affair. you understand how absurd this sounds? i understand that. and labour condemns the government for outsourcing a telephone helpline, set up to help women affected by the cancer screening failure. and now we learned that the hotline for women affected by the breast—cancer screening failures is provided by circa. but first, tuesday was not a good day for the government on brexit. ministers suffered another set of defeats in the lords on the eu withdrawal bill.

meanwhile downing street said the prime minister continued to have full confidence in the foreign secretary, borisjohnson, after he told a newspaper that proposals for a customs partnership with the eu would be ‘crazy‘. one of the defeats in the lords wasn't expected. it was over the uk's continued membership of the european economic area. it is hard enough to build a business in this country. and the proposes of this amendment have all done so. we create jobs, we create real wealth. and to make it harderfor us by ignoring what we do is, i think, unacceptable. i understand why the hard—brexiters would not lose any sleep

over this hardly at all. because for them it is not economic, it's political. but for the rest of the country, it is theirjobs, it is their livelihoods, the future of their businesses. it's our country's income, and moreover, it's our public services and what we will be able to afford of them that will be at stake. one conservative defended ministers. they‘ re pretty clear about what they want to achieve. they want a negotiation which would ensure the best deal for our country. and it is not helped by people like lord ally or lord mandelson or others who are seeking to undermine their negotiating position by passing amendments of this kind. then, in a phrase you don't often hear uttered about the lords, it all kicked off. if anybody‘s undermining the government at the moment, it's the foreign secretary rubbishing the prime minister! and my noble friend, who is a brilliant debater, and i am delighted to be able to debate with him, is making... a cause, but he is completely missing the point. and i would ask him just to reflect what sort of example

are we being given by a cabinet that is run up assunder by the foreign secretary rubbishing the prime minister in the daily mail? i know that my noble friend is not very keen on the foreign secretary and has made a number of attacks on borisjohnson in this house, including calling on the government to sack him. i would just like to point out that borisjohnson played an important part in the referendum campaign. and that the people voted... labour peers were under orders to abstain but despite that, the amendment was approved by 216 votes to 218, a majority of 27. just before that vote was another defeat, this time at the hands of the duke of wellington, yes, really!

the duke is a conservative former mep. he was unhappy that the moment of exit, 11pm on 29 march, 2019, was being written on the face of the bill. now if you've been following the minutiae of the whole brexit process so far, you'll know that the date was only put on the bill after the government agreed that ministers could change it if necessary. the duke of wellington, who tabled the amendment to remove the date, made his case by quoting a professor of eu law at cambridge university. ‘as creating an artificial straitjacket, in other words,‘ she said, ‘it creates a rot for the uk negotiators‘s backs weakens any uk negotiating position and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver brexit in a coherent, measured fashion'. it should be recognised by ministers that from all sides of this house, we are trying to help the government

in its negotiations on and not in any way to thwart the process. having the bill, it is a very silly move by the government. they didn't have it in to start with, for very good reasons. they gave flexibility to ministers to determine what it should be. they only put in under pressure from the tory party, and they only then amended it and made a mark confiscated from other bits of the tory party. the bill... under the treaty on the european union, and i see no reason therefore to change the bill any further. but peers thought otherwise and the government was defeated by 31! votes to 233, a majority of 78. the third defeat was about making sure there was no barrier to the uk staying in a range of eu agencies after brexit.

the bishop of leeds led the discussion. he gave the example of the maritime safety agency or emsa. it does no one any favours to pretend we are where we are not. it does everybody a favour to attend it to a detail that at least has the virtue of acknowledging the uncertainties ahead, the size and potential costs of the journey upon which we have now embarked, and gave us one element of shame. to quote another biblical line, ‘somewhat formless and void'. the minister, lord callanan, argued that the bill was simply about making sure the eu's lawbook worked after brexit, anything else just created confusion and uncertainty. but the bishop insisted on a vote, which the government lost by a majority of 71. the eu withdrawal bill moves on to its final stage for now in the house of lords next week. senior civil servants faced tough questioning over the events that led to the resignation of amber rudd as home secretary just over a week ago.

under pressure over the windrush affair, amber rudd told the home affairs committee her department did not have targets for removing illegal immigrants. it later emerged it did. now, the home office is to conduct an urgent review of the information given to amber rudd. the questioning began with whether any of the windrush generation had been wrongly deported. have there been cases of wrongful deportation or detention in the last six years? a very simple question, yes or no. i'm certainly conscious of cases where people have been detained and then released. so they been wrongfully detained? yes. and wrongfully deported? i don't think i've heard of any cases of wrongful deportation brought to my attention. have better been more cases of wrongful deportation? there have been cases... i'm thinking a handful? how do you numerate a handful?

you're asking me to recall the last four or five years. i'm saying a handful. why does the new home secretary not know that? what i do know is the wrongful detention... i'm asking specifically about wrongful deportation first. why does the new home secretary, and your permanent secretary not know that there have been wrongful deportations? i don't know. mr ind was also pressed on what removal targets had been set. from the beginning of 2017—2018, my senior team did so enforce the target for forced return. there were no targets for other returns between 2017—2018. later that year, we modified that to a mission to region between 220—250 forced returns a week. my team chose not to operate on targets for returns. did you have targets for 2016—2017. yes, but not for 2014—2015.

questioning then turned to how amber rudd gave the mps the wrong information. it's been suggested that there are memos from you that gave a completely different impression of what sort of target regime that may or may not have been operating. i actually don't think that i am the source of confusion, but i do believe that that is something that should be independently arbitrated. another mp pointed the finger at another official present at that hearing. glenn williams took a different approach, didn't he? he agreed with amber rudd in saying that there were no published removal targets and there is nothing broken down by region as far as i know. he must‘ve been lying, wasn't he? i don't accept that all.

his answer was wrong. he said there are no published removal targets. to my knowledge, there were no published removal targets. he replied that there is not a target. do you accept that information was not true? clearly the discussion of targets of that committee hearing was regrettably confused. i mean, that is rut—tastic! sir philip said there were no removal targets for the current year. the word being used is an expectation. he referred to it as an ambition oraim. you understand how absurd this sounds to normal people listening to this? in fact i imagine even most of the mps. i understand that, and i have of sympathy for that. but you make a very serious

accusation of dishonesty, which i do not accept. he said there was a lot of concern over what had happened. with the agreements of the cabinet secretary, i have asked sir alex alan, who is a former permanent secretary of the chancellors department in the last decade, he was then chairman of the joint intelligence committee, and currently the prime minister's adviser on minister's interest, so he is an imminent and very experienced servant of the highest ending. i have asked him on my behalf to do an urgent piece of work, an urgent review into the facts, so far as the support provided by the home service to the secretary before and after the hearing. sir philip ruttnam. you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, mandy baker. mps have expressed dismay

at the findings of a report into deaths among people with learning disabilities. the review was published last week. it found that the average age at death for people with learning disabilities is 59 for men and 56 for women. labour secured an urgent statement on the report. but it didn't get off to a good start when the health secretary, who was in the commons for question—time, left the chamber. order, urgent question. barbara keeley! to ask the secretary of state for health and social care to make a statement on the learning disability's mortality review. minister caroline dinenage, will answer the urgent question. and we look forward to her answer. minister dinenage! thank you, mr speaker, the government is absolutely

committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities, whose death may have been preventable. the learning disability mortality review programme was established injune 2015, and was commissioned by nhs england to support local areas in england to review the deaths of people with a learning disability. barbara keeley started by referring to the health secretary's absence. can i say i think it is disgraceful that the secretary of state has just run out of the chamber rather than answering this question himself. that is disgraceful. seven years after winterborne view and five years since the avoidable death of connor sparrowhawk, the findings of this review, mr speaker, show a much worse picture than the previous reports about the early deaths of people with learning disabilities. one in eight of the deaths reviewed showed that there had been abuse, neglect, delay in treatment or gaps in care. women with a learning disability are dying 29 years younger, and men with a learning disability, 23 years younger

than the general population. 28% of the deaths reviewed had occurred before the age of 50, compared to just 5% of the general population who die by that age. connor sparrowhawk, who had epilepsy and autism, drowned in a bath at an nhs care unit in 2013. when she was asked about the report on the radio for today programme, connor sparrowhawk's mother said that she was absolutely disgusted by the report. and that the way it had been published at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend, shows the disrespect and disregard there is for the scandalous position for people with learning disabilities shown in the report. the minister said the report made for "very troubling reading". as the report clearly identifies, there is still more work to do, and we will work with partners to see how recommendations may be implemented in practise. we're committed to learn from every avoidable death to ensure such terrible tragedies are avoided in the future. the true disgrace of this, is that none of this is new and we have been here before. five years ago, the government set out its promises to tackle this appalling death by indifference. and yet, we have seen no progress! parents come to me all the time

expressing their grave concerns about what will happen to their children with learning difficulties and disabilities, if they are not around to support them. in my constituency, i've had reports of bullying, from other people in the community, targeting by drug dealers, that these people are exploited by private companies, such as mobile phone providers, and utility companies, and they have difficulties accessing mental health support too. if the minister is really keen to show the government's desire to improve on the current appalling state of affairs, and state responsibilities need to be looked at more closely as well. i think the honourable lady is right. she makes the point more broadly, rather than just the health care outcomes for people with learning disabilities. we do need to look about how we look at people more broadly. and particularly for their parents, for the ageing parents, it must be a terrible worry. so i take onboard what she said

and will definitely feed to the system to see what more we can do to support. whilst the conclusions of the review make difficult reading in some ways, it's welcomed that it's happened, given it's the first time in the world this has been done. and it gives us the chance to have a very debate and discussion. what can be done particularly on a local level with councils and other third sector partners to take up some of the lessons learned in this review? it is the first time in the world this has been done. we are the first place in the world to have a learning from death programme, we are the first place to have a health and safety investigation bureau. we do take this kind of thing incredibly seriously. caroline dinenage. the health secretary has defended the use of a private company to run a special phone—line to help women who missed their breast cancer screening appointments because of an it failure.

updating mps, jeremy hunt said 1a thousand calls had been received following the setting—up of the helpline last week. but labour's shadow health secretary was outraged. and now we learn that the hotline for women affected by the breast—cancer screening failure is provided by serco, and staffed by call handlers who are far from having medical or counselling training, had one hours training. don't the women affected deserve better than that? will he provide the resources for that phone line to be brought back in—house and staffed by medical professionals? i normally have so much respect for the honourable gentleman, but i think those women deserve a lot better than that posturing. that helpline was set up on very short notice, because obviously, the call handlers couldn't do all their training until i made a statement to parliament. which ijudged was the most important thing to do first. it is not the only help that those affected women will be getting, and on the basis of advice received, be referred back for help at their local hospital or the cancer support

or through specialist clinicians at public health england. we thought it was right, that that number was made available quickly as possible. jeremy hunt. morejobs have been lost following the collapse of the construction firm carillion taking the total to almost 2,300. the news came on the day a commons committee continued its inquiry into what lessons could be learned from the company's failure at the start of the year. giving evidence, the boss of another outsourcing firm said "well run and well respected" businesses had lost vast amounts of money in recent years working on government contracts with "unmanageable amounts of risks". but the committee began by asking what the benefits of outsourcing were. the benefits of outsourcing, a value for money and...? i think technology, i think the innovation and the scale that comes like us bring to government departments. if i may improvise some of that, i think that if you flipped it around the other way and said, what would an alternative world look like where only government would supply public services? would that be a good idea where it was among a monopoly buyer, but also a monopoly

provider of services? you would lose a huge amount of choice, he would lose a huge amount of innovation. but he said there needed to be more transparency about decisions to contract out. he also told the committee many companies were put off doing business with the government because in recent years, some big firms had lost hundreds of millions of pounds doing business with government. a labour mp picked up on the financial problems facing some firms. certain financial difficulties of government providers have become, notjust carillion, but the rights issues with serco. what problems arise in the uk government's market power in public sector access? it is astonishing what has happened within this market, i have never seen it, not even in the banking crisis of 2008 have i seen so many very large companies have to refinance themselves. it is a symptom of, a couple of things.

it's a symptom of management. a lot of this is management's fall. there are many many failures on behalf of the private sector. but it is also a government that is a monopoly buyer. it cannot stand idly by and say, 'nothing to do with me, guv.‘ they have to accept some part of the, or at least be concerned about what has been a massive, massive disruption in the supply cycle, like of which i've never seen. where you've had £8 billion written off the whole sectors worth of value. hundreds of millions, billions of pounds being raised to recapitalize, all of them had one thing in common. they are major supplies to government. the committee later heard from a witness who thought

there needed to be much more transparency in outsourcing. when you see the terms by a chinese company, whose directors we know include members of the chinese communist party. that company getting involved in the preparation of it, which then can be used by uk forces, that is an occasion when you might think outsourcing has gone too far. and what about charities that worked with government? i think what is changing now is that large charities are starting to walk away from contracts. all charities of all sizes we are seeing are being asked to subsidize contracts with their donated income. and, we've work by charity finance groups suggest that a large scale charities delivering contracts are losing, on average 11%. so, just in the same way it is not working for the private sector,

it is not working for even large charities. and they're walking away. did using contractors undermine pay and conditions for workers? we commission with economics to look at the labour force survey, and what we picked was ten types of occupations that can be seen across the public, private and voluntary sector. care support worker would be one. clean or another. of those ten occupation types, nine at ten had longer hours than the private sector. all ten occupation groups had shorterjob—tenure, eight out of ten had a higher portion of ageing workers than the public sector. seven out of ten had shorter—term contacts in the private sector. and all ten occupations had lower median pay than the private sector. matt dykes from the tuc.

legislation to ensure victims of domestic violence can live in social housing in england when they escape from an abusive partner has cleared the commons. the secure tenancies bill will mean people forced to flee their homes will be entitled to lifetime tenancies, whether they apply for rehousing in the same location or in an alternative one. the housing minister heather wheeler called it a vital piece of legislation. it's a short and targeted bill. also an important part of the government's wider aims of supporting victims of abuse. to leave their abusive situation, and ensuring that they and their families are provided with stability and security that they need and deserve. i'm sure all members will agree that domestic abuse is a particularly horrible crime, it's effects are insidious and its impact are wide reaching. there are serious lasting impact on the victim, their families, and society as a whole. the bill, which has cross—party support, has already been passed by the lords. newspaper reports that groups of english football supporters are preparing to cause trouble at the world cup in russia injune have hindered efforts to prepare for a incident—free tournament, a police chief has told mps.

two years ago england fans clashed with russian supporters in marseille before and after the euro 2016 meeting between the two nations. fans last time, engaged in some of the worst violence, bullying, deliberate antagonism, provocation of supporters from other nationalities. and on top of that, you have the aftereffects of events in salisbury. itjust seems inconceivable that all of those guarantees will be bankable. it's not a case me persuading, it's a case of me outlining, recognising the threats and the level of reassurance we can give to supporters. so i'm not going to give nt blank checks about everything will be fine. we'll engages much as we can with the russian authorities. because we need to maintain a relationship if we are to have any type of opportunity to influence their understanding of how british supporters behave and how best to deal with them. we are acutely aware of the events in marseille. one of my officers gave cpr to one of the england fans who was injured. we are acutely aware of that.

but even from that point of view, what we saw there was at least, russian law enforcement that we were helping on the ground. we were committed to trying to stop that disorder, we saw them act in a professional way and give information and advice. so even at that state, the authorities were seen on the ground trying to work with us to prevent disorder. deputy chief constable mark roberts. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. so even at that state, the authorities were seen on the ground trying to work with us to prevent disorder. deputy chief constable mark roberts. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. hello.

wednesday gets off to a fine start for many of us but for some it's not going to last as we get rain heading in from the west. we saw a weather system move through on tuesday. this one here, the leading edge of cooler air so things cool down for many. not quite into east anglia and the south—east of england, but in the day ahead, that process is complete. low pressure to the north—west of us and that's feeding in cooler, fresher conditions across all parts, and a bit of rain, as i mentioned, coming into the west. and a bit of rain, as i mentioned, although most will start fine and dry for the morning, single—figure temperatures under clear skies but some in east and south—east england still around 10 or possibly 11 degrees. your eyes will be drawn to this weather system that will soon in the morning turn things wetter into northern ireland, into western scotland, the wind picking up as well, quite gusty into the western isles but it's really coming in very slowly so a lot of cloud increases ahead of that. many will be staying dry even on into the afternoon, particularly across eastern parts of the uk, and still some sunny spells into east anglia and south—east england, but temperatures here down

significantly compared with recent days. that's how we end the afternoon. going into the evening, some of us will be getting a wet evening rush—hour. some heavy bursts affecting western parts of scotland beginning to pull away from the western isles, patchy in nature to the east of scotland, not much into north—east england and clearing from northern ireland some will get the sun coming back before the end of the day, but more of wales and western england starting to get outbreaks of rain pushing into parts of the midlands too. much of eastern england will be dry and once this weather system crosses all parts, wednesday night into thursday morning, there isn't a huge amount of rain left on it. after the heat of the recent days if you want something on the garden, i think you're going to be disappointed. dry weather on thursday. there'll be a few showers developing, though, particularly into scotland, maybe the odd heavy one with a rumble of thunder. northern ireland and northern england, the rest of england and for much of wales, it is looking dry, variable cloud

and sunny spells. on the breezy side, if anything it's a little bit cooler still and some of us for the rest of the week towards in the north—west of the uk in particular will find temperatures below average for the time of year. another fine start for much of the uk on friday, but then we see another weather system gathering out to the west. the winds picking up ahead of that. while many on friday will stay dry, some will start to the outbreaks of rain. some uncertainty about the timing of this and the progression north—eastwards, so we will keep you updated, and temperatures still none too special. that's it for now. goodbye. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: president trump is pulling the us out of the iran nuclear deal and says he'll reimpose the highest—level sanctions on tehran. the fact is this was a horrible one—sided deal that should never, ever be made. it did not bring calm. it did not bring peace. and it never will. iran's president reacts with anger. he orders officials to prepare to restart enriching uranium "without limitations". france, germany and britain express regret. barack obama calls it a serious mistake. the eu's top diplomat says she's determined to preserve the deal.