are on their way home. a short while ago they arrived in alaska, next they fly to washington. the white house hailed the move a "positive gesture of goodwill" ahead of a planned summit between president trump and the north's leader, kimjong—un. president trump has warned iran of severe consequences if it restarts its nuclear programme. tougher sanctions could start as soon as next week. european signatories have been trying to salvage the agreement, but iran says there's only a limited opportunity to do so. the former malaysian prime minister mahathir mohamad has made a stunning political comeback, winning a general election against the party that has held power for more than 60 years. he said he now wanted to restore the rule of law. the result is being described as a political earthquake. he is 92. it is just after 2:30am. you

up—to—date with the headlines. it is time for wednesday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme. coming up: after president trump ditches the iran nuclear deal, the foreign secretary is defiant. britain has no intention of walking away. but some think donald trump has done the right thing. far from constraining iranian behaviour it has actually enabled the iranian regime to use its financial freedom to interfere in syria, in iraq. and the government sees off an attempt to hold an inquiry into relations between the media and the police. a former labour leader brands it a betrayal. and we have the government saying, let's dump this promise! it is too expensive, it is a distraction! how dare they, how dare they, to all those other victims?

but first, at noon the foreign secretary was in his customary seat just a little down the front bench from theresa may as she faced prime minister's questions. borisjohnson has had a bumpy week. he's just got back from washington, where he made a fruitless attempt to persuade donald trump not to ditch the iran nuclear deal. then he denounced one of the prime minister's preferred brexit policies as "crazy" — an unusual step for a cabinet minister. with all that in mind, the labour leader began his weekly interrogation. does the prime minister agree with her foreign secretary that her plan for a customs partnership set out in her lancaster house speech is in fact crazy? can i say... can i say, we are leaving the european union, we are leaving... we are leaving the customs union. but of course for our future trade

arrangements, trade relationship with the eu, we will need to agree customs arrangements which will ensure we leave the customs union so we can have an independent free trade policy and maintain no hard border between northern ireland and ireland, and that we have free trade with the european union as much as possible. jeremy corbyn then repositioned his spotlight further along the government front bench to the business secretary, greg clark. does she agree with her business secretary, who apparently backs the crazy customs partnership proposal, but made it clear he doesn't back a technological alternative when he told the bbcjobs would be at risk if we don't sort out a comprehensive custom deal? what he said on sunday was that it was absolutely right we should be leaving the customs union. but if borisjohnson thought he was off the hook after all that,

a labour mp had other ideas. cretinous, crazy, and certain other words beginning with c—r, used by some members on the benches opposite, have been used to describe the prime minister's proposals for a customs partnership. however, credible is not one. the snp were also keen to focus on the foreign secretary but over the issue of iran. pleading with the president through fox news rather than through direct intervention, mr deputy speaker, the middle east is in need of stability. conflict is raging in syria, yemen and iran. at home, the foreign secretary undermines the prime minister on the customs union. prime minister, can you tell us, when the foreign secretary

will agree with her own government's position, and if not, will she have the backbone to send him to the backbenches? can i say, it is absolutely right that government, in addressing the iran nuclear deal with the us government, worked across all levels and made representations at a variety of levels and in a variety of ways. that is what the foreign secretary was doing in washington and does what he has done with his opposite number in the past, as i have done with president trump, as has happened without french and german colleagues as well. we have continued to believe the iran nuclear deal was an important step forward in helping to keep the world safe, and, as i say, there are other issues that need to be worked on and both i and the foreign secretary will continue to work on those with our european and other allies. well, immediately after prime minister's questions,

the foreign secretary took centre stage to update mps. he said the uk wouldn't walk away from the iran nuclear deal orjcpoa, but some tory mps backed president trump's stance. the government regrets the decision of the us administration to withdraw from the deal and to reimpose american sanctions on iran. we did our utmost to prevent this outcome from the moment president trump's administration took office. we made the case for keeping the organisation at every level. last sunday i travelled to washington and repeated this country's support the nuclear agreement in meetings with vice president pence, the national security advisor and others. for as long as iran abides by the agreement and the ea has reported its compliance, iran's compliance nine times so far, then britain will remain a party to the deal. his labour shadow said president trump should be

"condemned" and all parties must stand united against the us decision. instead, by seeking to scupper the nuclear deal, donald trump has destroyed the platform for future progress and has risked triggering a nuclear arms race in the middle east, handing power to the theocrat and pushing iran back into isolation. he is taking all those risks without a single care, without the slightest justification and without the simplest rational thought as to what will come next. his analysis, this ratherflimsy agreement, should never have been called comprehensive because it does not include missiles, and farfrom constraining iranian behaviour, has actually enabled the iranian regime to use its financial freedom to interfere. in syria, in iraq, in, above all, yemen, and to sponsor further attacks without friends in saudi arabia. does the foreign secretary agree that iran's appalling destabilising

behaviour in the wider region, including its support of terrorism, would be even more dangerous if its nuclear programme goes unchecked? and this is therefore notjust in britain's national interest, but america and the world's interest that the deal remains in place? now the government has discovered the limits of sycophancy in dealing with president trump, can the foreign secretary spell out some of the economic implications? can he say first of all if the government has any contingency plans to protect british industry and motorists if the withdrawal of four million barrels a day of iranian oil results in an inevitable shock? the foreign secretary replied that the government would do its "utmost" to protect uk interests. there was a lighter moment when the subject turned to borisjohnson's denunciation of the prime minister's preferred customs plan as "crazy". my i first of all congratulate

the foreign secretary for his unswerving loyalty to collective government policy at the dispatch this afternoon? i thank my right honourable friend and i remember getting a lot of wonderful copy when i was a political journalist from the own displays of unswerving loyalty to government policy on the matter of... that my right honourable friend used to display. i am completely in conformity with government policy on that matter he describes because it is yet to be decided. the foreign secretary. another issue raised at prime minister's questions was the investigation of killings during the troubles in northern ireland. theresa may said the current arrangements were unfair. the situation we have at the moment is that the only people being investigated for things

that happened in the... these issues that happened in the past are those in our armed forces or those who served in law enforcement in northern ireland. that is patently unfair. terrorists are not being investigated. that is what the government wants to see. they should be investigated. the prime minister's comments follow reports that senior ministers have raised concerns about a new plan — the stormont house agreement — to investigate unsolved killings because they fear that former soldiers and police officers could be targeted unfairly. those fears were reflected on the tory backbenches when the northern ireland secretary took part in her regular question time. there is a very real danger that the stormont house agreement institutions may act against the interests of service men, former members of the security services, and give an unfair advantage to former paramilitaries, and in particular, does she share my concern about the possibility that without checks and balances, those institutions may create a form of historical revisionism that casts members of the security services in an unfairly poor light? the status quo at the moment sees

a disproportionate emphasis on the actions of the military and law enforcement during the troubles and really very little emphasis on the actions of paramilitary terrorists who are responsible for 90% of the killings during the troubles. that is why i do want to see a consultation on the institutions so we get exactly right those points the papers raise, the concerns people have about those institutions. can i tell the secretary of state in all candour that there are many of us on these benches who would not be prepared to tread blithely through the lobbies in order to support

the setting up of any institution which would scapegoat our military veterans to pander to sinn fein? the status quo is not good enough. the only people today getting knocks on the door from the police telling them they face inquests are the military. we need to change that. another former conservative minister served in the army. if we were to honour the bravery of my colleagues who lost their lives in the province, then the consultation flatly should say, we're not having a conversation, we will protect our soldiers and put them first and the terrorist second. the northern ireland minister said sir mike penning had made some very good points but he wouldn't be drawn further. you're watching wednesday in parliament with me, mandy baker. don't forget, you can find previous editions of this programme by going to the bbc iplayer. the cabinet office minister has told mps he wants to increase the number of companies contracted to provide government services. david lidington was speaking to a commons committee investigating lessons to be learned from the collapse of the construction giant carillion.

the firm had numerous government contracts, for such projects as building hospitals and managing schools. in a sentence, what are the main advantages of outsourcing? i think the main advantages of outsourcing would be economies of scale. you know, one company can service many clients. cost discipline. from competitive tendering for services. access by government to specialist knowledge about particular operations which it would be quite difficult for government to nurture and develop and maintain in—house. would you agree that the market for some services has become highly concentrated, and if so, is not a matter of concern to you? yes, i think it depends on which bits of the outsource market you are looking at. where there is a concentration is in the provision of complex

public services where the government is the only ultimate supplier of those services. the government is the buyer of those services and is contracting for them, so if you are looking at that market, then the top five suppliers of just under 60% of the market by value and i think it is a perfectly fair comment to say that does cause some concern. i would like that market to be bigger. how would it be possible to introduce more competitors into the concentrated end of the market? that is something which i am looking at post—karelian. you would expect the cabinet office is carrying out an internal review of lessons to be learned from that experience. and he hoped to say something in public about potential stages

over the next couple of months. the government has seen off an attempt to hold an inquiry into relations between the media and the police. the amendment to the data protection bill had been put forward by the former labour leader, ed miliband, after the government decided not to go ahead with the second stage of the leveson inquiry. today's court challenge is how to ensure a sustainable future for high—qualityjournalism that can or the powerful to account and the rise of click bait and disinformation and fake news is putting our whole democratic discourse at risk. —— core challenge. this is an urgent problem which is shaking the foundations of democracy worldwide and liberal democracies like britain cannot survive without the fourth estate and the fourth estate is under threat like never before. these clauses would exacerbate this threat. a labour mp referred to the review into the manchester arena bombing last may. the panel was shocked and dismayed by the accounts of the families of their experiences

with some of the media. now, that happened last year. he should not represent the threats posed by press misbehaviour being from the past. this is a real and pressing problem now. my daughter, aged seven, was spoken to and recorded by a journalist in 2016, an incident that traumatised her greatly and, as stated by the school, it was in her own garden and ignored. will he meet with me and my daughter to explain how children like her will be protected with his amendments and what he's trying to do going forward because she has no faith in the system. the secretary of state, when he originally decided to cancel levies two was that bad baby was in advance but it is ongoing and i would add to that bad behaviour. —— levison. there was much evidence that

could not be considered because of the court case is ongoing and crucially, that evidence included allegations of collusion between the press and police. that is something i would have thought in this house we should scrutinise to bits, notjust walk on by. ed miliband said that, as labour leader he, alongside the then prime minister david cameron and his deputy in the coalition, nick clegg, had agreed to address the issue. no ifs, no buts, no maybes, a clear promise and a promise to victims of the press. here we come along today and we have the government saying, "let's dump this promise, it's too expensive, it distraction. how dare they come at madam deputy speaker, how dare they are the likes of the mccann family, the dowler family, all those of the victims? how can we be here? i say to members across the house, i will not give way, i say to members across this house, whatever party they are in,

this is about our honour, this is a matter of honour about the promise we made. i give way. i'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman for giving way. he mentions what david cameron, nick clegg and he did. it seems to escape his attention that david cameron is no longer prime minister, nick clegg is no longer deputy prime minister and the three former mps, one still existing mp, cannot bind their success with the new parliament has the right to consider these matters are. that is what is rightly being done today after there were countless police investigations and prosecutions, many of which ended in acquittal. i give way to the honourable gentleman's constitutional knowledge but i do not give way to him on the question of morality. this is a question of morality. this is a question of the promises we made. remember the furore about all these

events, how people looked at us, how all of us, labour governments too were too close to the press and we said we would learn lessons. i take my responsibility also, we should have acted all year, all governments should take responsibility. but when it came to the vote his amendment was narrowly defeated by 304 votes to 295, a majority of nine. shortly afterwards, the government announced a "significant restriction" on the ability of the home office to use data held by the nhs. the concession came as mps prepared to consider another amendment to the data protection bill, proposed by the conservative sarah wollaston. she has major concerns about an agreement between the nhs and the home office allowing non—clinical information about patients, such as an address and date of birth, to be handed to immigration officials. the government has reflected further on the concerns put forward by my honourable friend

and her committee and, as a result, and with immediate effect, the data—sharing arrangements between the home office and the nhs have been amended. henceforth the home office will only be able to use the memorandum of understanding to trace an individual who is being considered for deportation action having been convicted of a serious criminal offence. or where their presence is considered non—conducive to the public good for example where they present a risk to public security. but have yet to be convicted of a criminal offence. dr wollaston quoted from a letter she'd received from the nhs and the home office. it states, "it's also important to consider the expectations of anybody using the nhs, a state—provided national resource. we do not consider that a person using the nhs can have a reasonable expectation when using this taxpayer funded service

that their non—medical data, which lies at the lower end of the privity spectrum, will not be shared securely between other offices within government in the exercise of their lawful powers such as this." i profoundly object to that statement. because there was no such contract in the founding principles of the nhs also i think that that fundamental principle of confidentiality is absolutely vital that we preserve it, including for data. i am delighted to hear the revista's words at the dispatch box but could she confirm absolutely that that statement as now been superseded? yes, i can confirm absolutely that the statement she quoted on the letter of the 23rd of february has been superseded by today's announcements. margotjames. now, will british football fans be safe if they go to russia for this summer's world cup?

mps are sceptical about assurances from the russian authorities that fans would be protected. appearing before the foreign affairs committee, a minister said the eyes of the world would be on russia and the government was providing extensive travel advice. that is kept under constant review and is regularly updated. as you know, for the world cup itself, we have created specific travel advice of the b on the ball brand, and that is also a platform in which we can outline all the different things that a supporter travelling to the tournament would want to be whereof. and the various different risks they need to be aware of. you have relied a lot on the world assurances. i presume the russian authorities gave assurances they would not use novichok in salisbury and would not murder people using polonium and that they wouldn't protect the murdering of syrians in syria and the allowing of chemical weapons in syria.

ijust wonder, are we being a bit naive relying on assurances from the russian federation? i think our travel advice, and i'm sorry to keep going back to it, but it is the distillation of all our best thinking. we do make some of these points in terms of our travel advice specifically in terms of homosexuality, while it is not illegal in russia, public attitudes are less tolerant than in the uk. those are the words we use. i understand what you're saying about attitudes but i'm not talking about public attitudes, and talking about, and on top of a police force that has been a pressing civil rights in moscow for the best part of two decades and when out asking them to protect civil rights and gay rights amongst our fans and this is a big ask. it is and that is why we spell out things in the way that we do in terms of our travel advice

and ultimately it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they feel comfortable travelling to a country that has got different public attitudes. another mp said there had been hundreds of instances of racial abuse of black players. the russian official appointed by the russian football union to chair an antiracism taskforce is quoted as saying, "there is no racism in russia because it does not exist." how can we trust assurances given by the russian football authorities to fifa that they are on top of these issues and will deal with them effectively? there have been instances that would be considered unacceptable but the world's press will be there, the eyes of the world will be there, the russian federation has given its assurances to fifa

and we spell out in our own advice the range of different issues. and we recommend that people read that closely and make their own decision in terms of whether or not they want to travel in person to the matches. harriett baldwin. finally, the more observant among you may have noticed something different about prime minister's questions. listen to this. order, order. that was the voice of the deputy speaker, sir lindsay hoyle. he was standing in for pmqs resident referee, john bercow, who was attending the funeral of the former speaker michael martin. sir lindsay seemed determined to bring the session back to its advertised duration of half an hour, and there were moments of impatience from the chair. prime minister, let's get on with it. it was all over at 22 minutes

to one, a good ten minutes shorter than the average session under speaker bercow. and at the end... order. they were shouting more, which is one of the peculiar ways the commons shows it appreciation. then again, maybe mps actually did want more. either way, next week pmqs will be back to bercow proportions. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. hello. once any early rain clears

easternmost parts of england as thursday begins, what follows will be a lot of fine, dry weather. here's the weather front, it's going to drag its heels for a little while on thursday morning across eastern england and elsewhere you can see some fine weather, but a hint of showers following towards the north—west. for many places you will avoid the showers, staying dry with broken cloud and sunny spells and temperatures come down a further few degrees across the south—east of england, most in the midst of low teams, looks like it will turn quite chilly on thursday night and into friday morning. low single figure was in some spots as we start the day, but we look to the west with another weather system coming in on friday and that's a very slow process but with strengthening winds, particularly in the west, cloud increasing, some outbreaks into northern ireland, western scotland, wales and westernmost parts of england. that's your forecast. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america

and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: three americans released by north korea are on their way home. the white house hails "a positive gesture of goodwill". president trump threatens iran with severe consequences if it restarts its nuclear programme. the us may reimpose sanctions as soon as next week. a shock win for malaysia's opposition and its 92—year—old leader. former prime minister mahathir mohammad makes an extraordinary comeback. and model members of the royal family. waxworks of meghan and harry are unveiled 10 days ahead of the royal wedding.