the headlines: on the eve of the united states‘ move of its embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, israel's leader, benjamin netanyahu, has called on other countries to do the same thing. most other governments have so far refused. palestinians bitterly oppose the move, which was ordered by president trump. indonesian police say a family of six, including two young girls, carried out the suicide bombings on three churches on sunday. at least 13 people were killed and dozens more injured in the city of surabaya. the couple and their children are reported to have just returned from syria. the british prime minister's plans for customs arrangements with the european union after brexit have been dealt another blow by a senior cabinet colleague. the environment secretary michael gove, a leading brexiteer, publicly criticised the idea of a customs partnership, saying it was flawed. 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 rubbishing the prime minister! the government says sorry for the uk's part in the kidnap and torture 1a years ago. 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 turn the 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 who was tortured in libya and a different face in the speaker's chair. 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 ali 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 negotiators‘ backs that weakens 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 international 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 there 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 & planning bill, for example — there were 19 defeats in the lords 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 are 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 bill 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 as trying to give the commons an opportunity to have a vote on membership of the single market in a way that the lords don't 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 oppose 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 discussed — 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, —— ping pong, 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 in 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 those 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 & 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 get pushed back.

thank you very much. defeats in the lords were not 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 the european 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 contributed to to your detention, rendition and suffering. the uk government shared information about you with its international partners.

we should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated, and we accept 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 relyon 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 deal in the desert in 2004? 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. an opponent of a regime?

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 a million is a sum 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. there are many here who 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 do need an overarching, major campaign, and this must be focused on children, and principally the bbc would be the an

organisation to lead it. i'm turning to 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 the 22nd ofjune, can we have a debate in government time 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? the leader of the house. mr speaker, you have served this house for very good number of years, in to the best way you possibly can, and i'm grateful to you for that, and i'm not sure 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 visit abroad in the correct manner. whilst 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 their government's own position? and if not, will she have the backbone to send him to the back benches? hear! 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 administration 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. —— theocrats in iran. 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 gratefulfor my right honourable friend — i don't remember him 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... laughter. i remember getting a lot of wonderful copy when i was a reporter, a political

journallist 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. laughter. 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? no, i don't accept that at all. well, his answer — you'll accept his answer was wrong. he said there were no published removal targets.

to my knowledge, there were no published removal targets. mr williams replied, "there is no target". now, do you accept that the information was not true? um, so, clearly the discussion of targets at that committee hearing was regrettably confused. but — well — i mean, that's a very interesting... that is sir humphrey—tastic! sir philip said there were no removal targets for the current year. instead, the word used is "an expectation" — i think he referred to an ambition, or aim. you understand how absurd this sounds to everyone listening to this, and even most of the mp5? no, i understand that, and i have a lot of sympathy with that. but nonetheless, you make a very serious accusation of dishonesty, which i do not accept. sir philip ruttnam. the government saw 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. he told mps that when he was labour leader, he, the then prime minister david cameron and his deputy in the coalition, nick clegg, had promised the victims of press intrusion that they'd address the issue. the minister set out the government's case for not going ahead with the second stage of the leveson inquiry. today's core challenge is how to reassure a sustainable future for high—qualityjournalism that can hold the power to account. and the rise of click bait and then stash disinformation and fake news is putting our whole democratic discourse at risk. this is an urgent problem, it is shaking the foundations of democracies worldwide, and liberal democracies like britain cannot survive without the fourth estate, and it is under threat like never before. and these clauses would exacerbate this threat. but ed miliband disagreed. no ifs, ands or buts, no maybes! a promise to victims, a promise to victims of the press! and we have a government saying, let's dump this promise! is too expensive,

it's a distraction! how dare they do the mccanns, all those other victims? how can we be here, madam deputy speaker? i say to members all over the house, no, i will not give way! i say to members across this house, what ever party they are in, this is about our honour! but when it came to the vote his amendment was narrowly defeated by 301! votes to 295, a majority of nine. some stories now from the wider world of politics. alex partridge is our guide. at five, is it a fashion faux pas to wear brown shoes at the commons? some of ben bradley's tory colleagues certainly thought so. brown shoes? appalling. disgraceful.

at four, conservative mps like to cheer when theresa may arrives for pmqs. but on but on wednesday, labour's stephen pam milked the applause for himself. i'm sorry, i don't think the house recognises that i'm a beacon of stability! at three, archived yes minister advice revealed this week. on becoming pm, tony blair was told he and cherie would have to spend more on clothes, and he would have to appoint lots of ministers in the lords to avoid peers getting sniffy. at two, prize for the most dated reference of the week? step forward, matt hancock. and we obviously take inspiration from south end's famous sons, including busted. but unlike busted, we determined it won't take until the year 3000 for us to get there. and at one, the presiding officer in cardiff bay found a novel way of sciencing neil hamilton. nothing you have said during this point has been on the record or on microphone. alex partridge.

finally, there was something a little different at prime minister's questions this week. listen to this. 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 ipm, a good ten minutes shorter than the average session under speaker bercow. and at the end... order! order. all shouting: more! top drawer. all shouting: more! 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. well, that's all we've got time for. don't forget there's a review of the day in parliament each night on bbc parliament at 11pm. but for now from me, mandy baker, goodbye. hello there. it has been a bit of a mixed weekend, but for many of us, sunday was a beautiful day. so more rain and cloud it that sometimes in the north and east. but for many of us, a lot of sunshine on offer. it was certainly the case in helensburgh. this picture was taken by one of our weather watchers. a

lot of sunshine berrer through because a sunday. monday end the week ahead, it will be mostly dry, with high pressure in charge. spells of sunshine, but a cooler interlude through the middle part of the week. the satellite showers the cloud moving in from the west and also the east. sandwiched in the middle of those two areas of cloud are clear skies. a chilly night first thing monday morning with temperatures close to freezing in one or two rural spots. but through the day, lots of sunshine down the spine of the country. more cloud for parts of eastern england and scotland as well. in the sunshine, i9 eastern england and scotland as well. in the sunshine, 19 or 20 degrees. but the cloud will push across northern ireland a western scotland, and later on western fringes of england and wales as well. high—pressure tries to extend across the country, but is met by this weather front. a weak affair, but it will introduce cloud to northern ireland, western scotland as well. some patchy rain. cloud lingering to the east with a cool

breeze coming in for some of the north sea coasts on tuesday. the cloud should ten and break and sunshine for many southern and eastern areas. tuesday, april 20 warmest day of the week, with temperatures from aberdeenshire down towards sussex between 18— 23 celsius. things will turn cooler from the novel is behind the weather front. the front move southwards and eastwards a cross front. the front move southwards and eastwards across much of the country through tuesday night and into wednesday. behind it, a change in wind direction, turning more northerly and introducing cooler conditions. the blue colour is returning to the map. although high is in charge, and there will be lots of sunshine, a little bit cloudy across some parts of england and wales. a cool northerly breeze especially across the expose coast. it will feel chilly. inland away from the breeze, quite pleasant. 1260 degrees on wednesday, a little below average for the time of year. addiction will they touch and stay largely dry with spells of sunshine as we look towards the end of the

week. that is how it is looking. more on our website. goodbye. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is nkem ifejika. our top stories: the us prepares to open its embassy in jerusalem, but most countries will boycott the ceremony. the family of bombers who blew themselves up to kill christians in indonesia. britain's brexit disagreement: the government still can't agree on a way forward. and, six weeks until they're allowed to drive on roads, these women in saudi arabia are ready to go. it's as controversial as it is historic.