authorities warn the number of dead and injured is likely to rise. anti—terror police are investigating a knife attack in paris, which left one person dead and at least four others injured. witnesses reported the attacker shouting ‘allahu akbar‘ before he was shot dead by police in the popular opera area of the city. so called islamic state say they were behind it. north korea's announcement that it will dismantle its nuclear test site within two weeks has been welcomed by south korea and the us. pyongyang says international experts and journalists will be allowed to observe. president trump tweeted his thanks, calling it a "great and gracious gesture". now on bbc news, time for ‘the week in parliament'. peers inflict a string of defeats

on the government over the eu withdrawal bill and tempers fray. if anybody is undermining the government at the moment, it's the foreign secretary publishing the prime minister! the government says sorry for the ukip‘s par in the kidnap and torture 1a years ago so philip i apologise unreservedly. we are profoundly sorry for the ordeal that you have both suffered, and our role in it. and the government sees off an attempt to hold an inquiry into the relations between the press and the police. a former labour leader branded a betrayal. we have the government saying, let's dump this promise! it's too expensive,

it's a distraction! how dare they, madam deputy speaker? how dare they do in the cans? all those other victims? but first, i think it is safe to say that this was not a good week for the government on brexit. a string of defeats in the lords, an apology for a dissident tortured in libya and a different face in the speaker's chair. join me, mandy baker, for the week in parliament on bbc parliament at 11pm tonight. a string of defeats in the lords, an apology for a dissident and then there were borisjohnson‘s comments that the prime minister's customs partnership idea was "crazy". but let's start with those defeats. and one of them, over continued membership of the european economic area after brexit, definitely wasn't expected. we create jobs, we create real wealth, and to make it harderfor us by ignoring what we do is, i think, unacceptably. i understand why the hard brexiters will not lose any sleep over this probably at all, because for them, it is not economic, it is political. but for the rest of the country, it is theirjobs, it is their livelihoods,

it is the future of the businesses. but one conservative defended ministers. they want a negotiation which will ensure the best deal for our country and it is not helped by people like lord alli 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 is undermining the government at the moment, it is the foreign secretary rubbishing the prime minister. well, labour peers were under orders to abstain. but despite that, the amendment was approved by 2a7 votes to 218, a majority of 29. before that vote, there were two others amendments the government wanted to stop. one was proposed by a duke, the other by a bishop. only in the house of lords! on the issue of putting the date of exit on the face of the eu withdrawal bill, the government was defeated by the duke of wellington, i'm not making this up,

he's a conservative former mep. he set out the case against specifying an exact exit date. it creates a rod for the uk negotiator‘s backs that weakens any uk negotiating position and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver brexit in a coherent, measured fashion. crucially, the bill left the other place reflecting the reality of national law under the treaty on european union, and i see no reason, therefore, to change the bill any further. but peers thought otherwise and the government was defeated by 78 votes. it was the bishop of leeds who wanted to keep the uk in a range of eu agencies after brexit in a third amendment. ministers lost that one too. so after six days of debate, the government had been defeated 11! times. i asked maddy thimontjack from the institute for government how unusual it was for a bill to be

defeated so many times. it is quite a high number to have defeat at this stage. but they have been pieces of legislation in the past which have had more defeats in the general legislative process than in the whole passage of the bill through parliament, the housing and planning bill, for example, there were 19 defeats in the laws to the whole passage. so, we'll have to see whether there are more government defeats in the lords going forward. now, there have been headlines like this one in the daily mail from thursday, about, what... they've got traitors in ermine. is it the job of the lords? are the lords doing theirjob or are they sabotaging, like this headline implies? the lords and doing theirjob. the house of lords is intended to be a revising chamber but also a chamber which asks the house of commons to sometimes think again, and that is exactly what they have been doing. there have been quite substantial changes to the will while it has been in the lords, some of those have been more technical and the big headline has

been around this amendment that says the government has tried to negotiate access to the european economic area. but the lords have been very careful to frame this is trying to give the commons an opportunity to have a vote on membership of the single market. in a way that the lord stevens think the government have actually given the commons the ability to do so so far. but if we stay in the single market, we are really staying in the european union, i think that is the problem with what people are calling sabotaged. yes, but the amendment that has been made so far, that doesn't mean that the amendment will stay in the bill. so, the bill goes back to the commons, once it has finished its reading in the lords, which will be on the 16th of may. and the commons will have an opportunity to consider those amendments. in that case, the commons can vote against the amendment the lords have made,

and again, the lords have signalled that they will listen to the commons on this. they are just trying to give the commons the opportunity to debate and discuss membership of the single market and, yes, if the commons opposed that amendment, i expect the lords will listen to them. what do you see happening now when it comes back to the commons? will the commons send things back to the lords and the lords still try to change them again? honestly, it is very difficult to tell. at the moment, we are waiting to find out when the bill will actually returned the commons. we don't have a date for that yet. there have been some, as you discuss, 11! government defeats, there have been quite significant changes to the bill, and some of those changes the commons might reject. at the moment, the lords have signalled that they really will be listening to the commons. i really can't say how long it will go on for. once we have the first stage of things upon, the first consideration of amendments from the commons, then we might have a clear idea of how long it will go on for. does it give rebels and the commons a bit more boost to see the lords have made all these changes

and defeated the government so many times? i think it can give a bit more cover to some of the conservative backbenchers. the conservative backbenchers, during committee in the commons, did raise a lot of concerns and some of those concerns of the government has listened to. really, it will be for them to decide whether those changes that have been made by the government as well during the report stage in the lords, and whether they find both acceptable and whether they don't need those further changes that the lords have made. and still more brexit legislation to come? the eu withdrawal bill is not the only story, is it? that is true. there are in total 12 brexit bills. this is one of them. five of these bills are yet to be introduced, we haven't seen them yet. and the customs and trade bill has gone missing in action. it was last in the commons injanuary at committee stage, and hasn't been scheduled to return yet. i do think the government is in danger of a bit of a parliamentary pile—up with these pieces of legislation, if many of them yet pushed back. thank you very much. but one conservative defended. well, as i mentioned,

defeats in the lords weren't theresa may's only brexit—based problem. does the prime minister agree with her forensic retrieve that the plan for up customers partnership set out in her lancaster house speech is in fact crazy? can i say to the right honourable gentleman we are leaving vera pn union, we are leaving the customs union, but of course, for our future trade arrangements, trade relationship with the european union, we will need to agree customs arrangements. boris johnson wasn't the only minister in the spotlight. the labour leader moved on to greg clark. does she agree with her business secretary who makes 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 customs and deal? what the business secretary said on sunday was that it was absolutely right that we should be leaving the customs union. now, the government has apologised to a libyan dissident and his wife for britain's part in their capture and torture in 200a. abdul hakim belhadj was held for six years. fatima bouchar was pregnant when she was detained. she was released shortly before giving birth. the attorney general read out the apology issued by the government. neither of you should have been treated in this way. the uk government's actions in tribute to to your detention, and suffering. the uk government shared information about you with its international part is. we should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated, and we access this was a failing on our part. we must not lose sight of the fact

that this case only came to light because somebody happened to find papers in gaddafi 's house in the days following the collapse of that regime. surelyjustice should never rely and events as arbitrary and random as that. can he tell us whether the investigations that have gone into settling this claim have uncovered whether what happened here was part of the dark side of tony blair's the limit desert with the battery in 200a? the attorney general said he couldn't comment on the conduct of tony blair's government. but one conservative didn't feel the same constraint. has any apology in given from tony blair? i doubt it, any more than the apology over iraq. while mr belhadj hadn't asked for compensation, mrs bouchar will receive £500,000. my constituents in kettering will be stunned by the scale of the compensation.

half £1 million is some they could never aspire to themselves. the necessity of compensating for what happened to her is beyond doubt and part of the appropriate approach that the government needs to take. the attorney general. now let's take a look at some of the other news from westminster in brief. mps from all parties accused the government of using a procedural tactic to block legislation initiated by backbench mps. you see, bills requiring extra public spending can only proceed through parliament if the government introduces what's called a money resolution. so far, there's been no sign of a money resolution for a private member's bill on constituency boundaries in england. the labour mp sponsoring that bill asked an urgent question to complain about the delay. the government is trying to frustrate the democratic will of parliament and block the bill by procedure. this is an abuse of parliament

by this government. it doesn't like the bill so it is using the procedural tactic which breaks all convention. the government announced a "significa nt restriction" on the ability of the home office to use data held by the nhs. the conservative chair of the health committee, sarah wollaston, proposed the change, following concerns over 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. senior ministers raised concerns about a new plan to investigate unsolved killings during the troubles in northern ireland,

because they fear that former soldiers and police officers could be targeted unfairly. those fears were reflected on the conservative backbenches. they would not be prepared to go through the lobbies in order to set up any institution which would scapegoat our military veterans to pander to sinn fein. peers heard that contrary to popular belief, watching tv could help prevent children getting fat. a third of under—15s are overweight or obese. one labour lord demanded the broadcasters act. we really d need an overarching major campaign, and this must be focused on children and the bbc, an organisation to lead at. i'm turning into the commissioner of children's programming shortly. a conservative mp called for a debate on the future of the speaker, john bercow.

mr bercow has been accused of bullying behaviour, allegations he denies. mr speaker, given your manifesto commitment to go by that 22nd ofjune, can we have a debate about what we want from a speaker, what type of speaker we want, before we move to a secondary discussion about who we want to replace you? mr speaker, you have served this house for very good number of years, and to the best way you possibly can, and i'm grateful to you for that, and am unsure that a debate on the subject would be at all welcoming. the labour mp for lewisham east heidi alexander announced she's standing down from the commons to work for the london mayor, sadiq khan, as the deputy mayor for transport. so labour requested a by—election, and here's how that simple question sounds in commons—speak. i beg to move that mr speaker issue his warrant to the clerk of the crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a member

to serve in this present parliament for the borough constituency of lewisham east in the room of heidi alexander. the writ was moved and the by election will take place on ilijune. all in all, it's been a bumpy week for the foreign secretary, and not only because ofjibes about his characterisation of the prime minister's brexit plans. there was also his ultimately fruitless mission to washington to try to persuade the us president not to ditch the iran nuclear deal. his trip included an interview on donald trump's favourite tv show, not something the snp approved of. pleading with the president through fox news rather than through direct intervention, mr deputy speaker, the middle east is in need of stability. meanwhile the foreign secretary cannot deliver a foreign messed abroad in the correct manner. wellstone, the foreign secretary

undermines the prime minister on the customs union. prime minister, can you tell us when the foreign secretary will agree with the government's own position? and if not, will she have the backbone to send him to the back benches? the prime minister didn't refer directly to the tv show fox and friends, but explained that the foreign secretary had made representations at a variety of levels and in a variety of ways. borisjohnson later updated mps on the situation with the iran nuclear deal orjcpoa. the government regrets the decision of the us and ministration to withdraw from the deal and to reimpose american sanctions on iran. we did our utmost to prevent this outcome from the moment that president trump's administration took office. we made the case for keeping it at every level. by seeking to scrap the nuclear deal, donald trump has destroyed the platform for future progress and risk triggering a nuclear arms race in middle east,

handing power to the hard—line theocratic iran and pushing iran back in isolation. this rather flimsy agreement should never have been called competence of, and does not include missiles. and far from constraining iranian behaviour, it has actually enabled the iranian regime to use its new financial freedom to interfere in syria, iraq... i'm grateful, i remember my right honourable friend making these points when the deal was done. but there was a lighter moment. first of all, congratulations to the foreign secretary for his unwavering... i remember getting a lot of wonderful copy when i was a reporter from the... on the matter that my honourable friend used to dispense. by the way, i'm completely in conformity with government policy on to the matter

to which he is referring to, although that has yet to be decided. senior civil servants faced tough questioning over the events that led to the resignation of amber rudd as home secretary last month. 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? very simple question, yes or no. i'm certainly conscious of cases

where people have been detained and then released. so they have been wrongfully detained? and wrongfully deported? i don't think i've heard any cases of wrongful deportation brought to my attention. onto the issue of amber rudd giving the committee the wrong information. one mp pointed the finger at another official present at that hearing. glenn williams with the then—home secretary took a different approach. he agreed with amber rudd in saying that there were no published removal targets and nothing broken down by region as far as i know. he must have been lying? i don't accept that at all. his answer was wrong, whether you accept it or not. he said there were no published removal targets. to my knowledge, there were no published removal targets. mr williams replied, "there is no target". you accept that the information was not true? clearly the discussion

of targets at the committee hearing was regrettably confused. that's a very interesting... that is sir humphrey—tastic! sir philip said there were no removal targets for the current year. the word used is an expectation, orambition, oraim. you understand how absurd this sounds to everyone listening to this, and even most of the mps? i understand that, and i have a lot of sympathy with that. but nonetheless you make a very serious accusation of dishonesty, between the media and the police. the amendment to the data protection bill had been put forward

by the former labour leader, ed miliband. he told mps that when he was labour leader, he, the then without thefgu'rthestatfi and it is under threat like never before.