the headlines: the united states says it is still planning a meeting next month between president trump and the north korean leader, kim jong—un, despite the north suspending talks with south korea. the north said joint us—south korean military exercises currently taking place were a threat and should stop. dozens of funerals have been taking place in the gaza strip for palestinians killed on monday by israeli forces. two more people were killed on tuesday during demonstrations on the border. at the un security council in new york, there were angry exchanges between israeli and palestinian envoys. for the first time, facebook has revealed the scale of abuse on its site. the company says it removed or warned about 29 million posts in the first three months of this year. it says the postings broke rules about terrorism, hate speech, and graphic violence. it follows calls for greater transparency. now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello there and welcome to our

round up of tuesday in parliament. on this programme: britain is calling for an independent investigation into violence in gaza in which more than 50 palestinians were killed by israeli troops. we have no side here except for with the victims and all our concerns should be how to prevent and how to stop there being more victims. the culture secretary warns peers against trying to reintroduce plans for an enquiry into the newspaper industry. we have made concessions in order to take on broad legitimate concerns but ultimately, this house will have decided its view having considered the question twice. and more questions for the home office about the treatment of the windrush generation. how many people from the windrush generation have been wrongfully detained? i do not know.

i do not have that information yet. but first, the foreign secretary says he's "deeply saddened" by the loss of life in gaza. 58 people were killed on monday when israeli troops opened fire during palestinian protests, in the deadliest day of violence there since a war in 2014. the deaths coincide with the 70th anniversary of what palestinians call the nakba, a mass displacement of palestinians after israel's creation. monday's violence came as the us inaugurated its first embassy injerusalem, a controversial move that broke with decades of us policy. the foreign secretary made a brief statement at question time. i am deeply saddened by the loss of life in gaza, where peaceful protest was exploited by extremists. i urge israel to show restraint in the use of live fire and i take this opportunity to repeat the uk's commitment to a two state solution with jerusalem as the shared capital. a short time later, labour asked an urgent question.

what makes yesterday's events all the worse is that they did not come as a result of some accidental overreaction to one day's protest, but as a result of a culmination of six weeks and apparently calculated and deliberate policy to kill and maim unarmed protesters who pose no threat to the forces on the gaza border. many of them shot in the back, many of them shot hundreds of metres from the border, and many of them children. can i ask the minister of state today if he will take the initiative, not just in supporting a new security council statement, but in helping draft a new statement, making no criticism of any party and no link to any other issue, but simply calling for an urgent and independent investigation into the violence in gaza, to assess whether international law has been broken and hold those responsible to account? we have no side here except with the victims

and all our concern should be how to prevent and how to stop there being more victims. the honourable lady made a series of allegations in reation of the use of live rounds and like and it is precisely because of such allegations that of course there should be an investigation into this. the united kingdom has been clear in calling for, urgently, a need to establish the facts of what happened, including why such a volume of live fire was used, and we are supportive of that independent transparent investigation. having worked for almost a year and a half in gaza as a surgeon, i am one of the few people in this chamber who has seen the result of live ammunition and what it does to the human body. the various members talk about breaching the fence, but most of those injured were nowhere near the fence. we have over 200 children injured. i7 medics injured. they were not trying to invade israel, so how will the british government push

for an inquiry and will they understand that while hamas may have manipulated people to encourage the scale of this protest, the despair i see when i visit gaza is the underlying cause. i'm the first mp of palestinian and were it not for the nakba, and we're commemorating 70 years of that today, i may not be here so i would be remiss from sitting in my seat not to press the government. and i absolutely agree hamas is partly responsible for this and in between hamas and a very extreme israeli prime minister, we have the blood of children. would he not agree, however, that the two sides are not meeting as equals among whatever peace process table, and now is the moment to give recognition to the palestinians so that we have hope because that is also what has died this week. we can all agree that an effective peace process is vital if we're to avoid the tragedies of the kind that occurred yesterday. and will he acknowledge that hamas are a serious roadblock to the peace process and will he

condemn them for that? it is clear from the allegations and evidence that there is likely to have been extremist exploitation of the events of the perfectly proper march. it is for that reason that an independent investigation has got to cover all aspects but those who have contributed to extremism and deaths do indeed need condemnation. does the minister have any confidence that the facts about hamas‘ involvement in this started from their role in destroying chances for peace after israel left gaza in 2005, and then forcibly removed the settlers and soldiers there, and would they include hamas postings on facebook over last couple of days which advised the demonstrators to hide guns and knives in their clothing before breaking the barrier into israel's territory, and attacking israeli

civilians across the border. the minister said it was important any investigation uncovered all aspects of what might have happened. for the second time in a week, mps have voted against re—opening the leveson inquiry into press standards. the culture secretary, matt hancock, made further concessions after a second round of opposition from the lords. matt hancock said a review of newspapers‘ compliance with data protection rules would be widened in scope and would become permanent. the approach that we are proposing is the right one — that we do not have statutory regulation of the press. but we in this house can debate a report on what's happening in the press and the self—regulation of it. does he not see rather worrying undemocratic tendency in the other place? they don't like the results of referendums, the eu bill, manifesto bills. now they don't like

this manifesto bill. now they want to regulate the press because the press points out the errors of their ways. it was journalists that uncovered the appalling child abuse like in rotherham and gave voice to its victims. and it was journalists who reported on horrific allegations of sexual abuse in football which led to many more victims coming forward. while we all recognize the examples that the secretary of state has given and we all applaud those examples, they do not excuse the bad behaviour by other sections of the press. 0ur concern is not withjournalists who behave ethically and behave well at all times. it's with those who don't. murray says and i quote, what upset me most about the media intrusion we've had was the fact that my youngest daughter heard from a journalist on our doorstep that her brother had died. you cannot unhear what you hear. she was a child and this was absolutely not fair, fiercely unethical and cruel. i just ask colleagues to put yourselves in that position. you're a teenager and you find

out your brother has been killed in a terrorist bomb by a journalist turning up at your door while your parents are out searching for him. one of the purposes of re—examining what went wrong in the past is to find out how such extensive criminality was allowed to grow in our press and exactly where responsibility lays so it isn't repeated in future. there are some questions which we still don't know the answer to. the corporate governance and other failures at news international and elsewhere that allowed this wrong doing to go on. did the police fail to investigate because of a close relationship with the press? did the politicians do the same? these are highly material questions, madam deputy speaker, which go to the trust in some of our most important instutions.

the will of this house has been settled. the other end should not be throwing this back at us. we've made the decision. we just need to get this on the statute book. and when it came to the vote mps rejected the lords call for a renewed inquiry into press ethics. the electoral commission has told mps it needs tougher powers to seize documents and impose higherfines. officials from the elections watchdog said they were currently able to obtain warrants and search premises but greater "immediacy" was needed when targeting groups assisting high—profile campaigners. last week, the regulatorfined the pro—brexit campaign group leave.eu £70,000 for breaching spending rules during the 2016 campaign, but its founder the businessman, aaron banks, denies the claims and is threatening legal action. there has been a lot of, if you like, concern and speculation that has been raised over the last year or so about whether our electoral law is fit for purpose for the digital age and whether it

needs to be amended to reflect new techniques, new technologies, that people have at their disposal. i would like to ask your views on that? i do not think it is any secret that our electoral law is old and fragmented. it is something that has developed over the years and right across the work that we do, we struggle with the complexity that that creates. however i do not think i will go so far as to say it is not fit for purpose, i think there is a lot of opportunity to modernise it. but the commission did need tougher powers. we have repeatedly said that we feel our maximum fine, which is £20,000, isjust too low. it has been described as a cost of doing business and that is something that we would like to see increased, particularly in line with other regulators who can make much more significant fines.

what level of fine would you think is appropriate? that is for parliament to decide but we would like there to be a debate about that and for parliament to set that appropriately. the next area we would like to see some improvements is around our ability to enforce the rules. in particular, the ability to compel those we don't regulate to provide information. particularly outside of campaign periods. so for example at the moment, outside of the campaign period, we cannot compel social media companies to share information with us and that is a challenge. we do have the ability to acquire documentation, we do have the ability to visit premises, to get warrants and so forth and as she said, we have not had difficulties in obtaining documents either voluntarily, or acquiring it, or seizing it, we have been able to do that. however, having said that, and having seen the information commision, and recent stuff, there is something about enhancing these powers. there's something about immediacy of obtaining documents that seems more pertinent than ever and as she says, notjust directly related to campaigners but other bodies around campaigners as well,

who may have relevant documents. questioning then turned to the role of social media and interventions in uk politics from overseas. at the moment you are saying we have rules but it does not seem to me that we have any way of investigating spend from outside the uk on political adverts in the uk. we take this very seriously, that's why we're doing the work we are. you are right, we have no powers to either intervene or to stop someone acting if they are outside of the uk. i have a list here of donations, of advertisements that were on facebook that i found out about last thursday with everyone else because the united states congress published them. we've heard evidence in two long sessions with facebook, which were specifically on these issues and this is the first time we have seen this information. i think what we need is for you to have the power

as the electoral commission to require, for example, facebook to disclose advertisements that have been paid for from overseas in our electoral period. yes. at the moment we do not have that power. no. i very much agree with that. it is good to see proposals for midterm american elections and proposals for ireland, we'll learn from the experience, about things like proposal and transparency, but it is notjust about us seeing it. it should be there for everyone to see it, there should be transparency in real—time. you should be able to see what targetting is going on and i think we should have the ability over and above that to require information from them, immediately and quickly and that might be about information that should not be there. imprints, what the source of funding is, it may have overseas funding and shouldn't be, and the ability for us require that to be taken down as well. you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy. the home secretary has revealed

that the home office is investigating more than 60 cases of people who could have been wrongly removed or deported as part of the windrush scandal. those arriving in the uk between 19118 and 1971 from caribbean countries have been labelled the windrush generation, a reference to the ship empire windrush, which arrived in 19118, bringing workers in response to post—war labour shortages in the uk. problems have arisen since changes to immigration law in 2012, which require people to have documentation to work, rent a property or access benefits, including health care. giving evidence to the home affairs committee, sajid javid said officials have been looking through 8,000 records dating back to 2002. out of the 8,000, so far a focus on 63, there's something in their record that indicates that they could have been in the uk before ‘73.

who have been removed or deported? who have been removed or deported. he said 32 of those deported had been foreign offenders. 31 were people removed "administratively" by officials rather than a court order. do you think that number's likely to rise, though? the 63. i mean, i don't want to speculate on it but i would say it's not a final number at this point. it could change because the work on these records is still ongoing. i've asked officials to be absolutely certain and look at every record and make sure that they found everyone where there's any indication whatsoever that they might be in the uk before ‘73. how many people from the windrush generation have been wrongfully detained? i don't know. i don't have that information yet because our starting point has been that what we should first look for is wrongful deportation or wrongful removals.

i have to say in terms of priority now, i want number one to help those people that are in that country that still need documentation that are contacting us. that's number one. and then in terms of acts of the past that may be wrong, priority number two is deportation and removals and then number three will be to look properly at any wrongful detentions if there were any. are you convinced that there are no windrush people in detention at the moment? i can't say that for certain. i don't think so at all. well... we have checked that and we don't believe there are any. i raised this with the former home secretary and that would be my priority. if people are deprived of their liberty at the moment erroneously, that to me is a greater priority than somebody who has been deported wrongly. there was some amazement last week when borisjohnson described one

of number 10's proposals for a post—brexit customs arrangement as "crazy". a "customs partnership", thought to be favoured by the prime minister, could involve the uk collecting import tariffs on behalf of the eu. in a daily mail interview, the foreign secretary said it would limit the uk's ability to do post—brexit trade deals. instead, borisjohnson is thought to favour what's been dubbed the max fac option, using technology and "trusted trader" schemes to keep disruption in the flow of goods across the border to a minimum. the cabinet is said to be divided over the options, so it was perhaps no surprise that the shadow foreign secretary raised borisjohnson‘s comments during their regular question time exchanges. may i begin by thanking the foreign secretary for leading our cross—party efforts over the last two weeks to destroy the prime minister's customs partnership proposal. i trust he finished the job off earlier this morning. but unfortunately, this does leave us with his own crazy

mad max proposal. max fac proposal. on that, can i ask him a very simple yes or no question? and one that has been asked several times by my right honourable friend, the chair of the home affairs committee. does he believe that cameras are physical infrastructure? i am grateful to the right honourable lady for raising this matter. because it may provide her with an opportunity to elucidate the nation as to the policy on the customs union of the labour party. because i seem to remember them campaigning at the last election on a platform to come out of the customs union. and now say they want to stay in a customs union, a customs partnership. their policy is absolutely clouded in obscurity. and if the right honourable lady wishes now to part those clouds of confusion, then this is her moment. emily thornberry. we are quite willing, mr speaker, to exchange places with the other side.

all we would ask for is that they call for a general election. and i don't think there is even an attempt to answer the question that i asked, and like the prime minister, he seems unwilling and unable to state the blindingly obvious. so much for plain speaking and blunt authenticity. let me try another key question about the max fac proposal. can the foreign secretary confirm that if... he does need to listen otherwise he won't understand what the question is and can't answer it. if the technology his proposal relies on takes five years to become fully functional, then the uk will be obliged to remain part of the customs union and to be bound by single market rules until at least 2023? we had an opportunity, the right honourable lady had the opportunity to be clear about what labour wants to do. we on this side of the house have been absolutely clear. the prime minister has said it time and time again. we are coming out of the single market, mr speaker.

we are taking back control of our borders, of our laws, of our money, and we are coming out of the customs union. and the prime minister in her mansion house speech gave plenty of indications of how we would deal with the problems that the right honourable lady describes. over in the lords a labour peer raised a report by her majesty's inspector of prisons, which found that a company contracted by the government to remove low—risk asylum seekers used excessive force on a removal flight. lord beecham described what had happened. there were 80 staff members on a flight organised by a subsidiary of capita, in which 23 asylum prisoners were being deported, 22 of whom were placed in waist restraints which were neither necessary, proportionate nor reasonable in the view of the inspector. bad language was used and the only female detainee was forced to use the toilet with the door open. how many more cases of mistreatment of prisoners and asylum seekers by the private companies engaged by the ministry ofjustice

and the home office to run our prison and asylum services will her majesty's government tolerate before terminating their contracts and taking the service back in house? i must stress that the government does not have a dogmatic approach to contractors, ie that private is bad and public or in—house is good. it is important that companies that we contract to meet the standards that we set. she said a service improvement plan would be issued shortly. i have to say that all escorts are fully trained in homes techniques, that is home office manual for escorting safely, and they do undertake regular refresher training courses. but the new contractor who started on the ist of may, we will be doing... we will be revisiting some

of the assessment processes and the use of de—escalation techniques. this is yet another example of the incompetence of the home office in not being able properly to supervise the performance and activities of their subcontractors. my lords, this is not a major management problem. if the home office really can't manage that, truly, as a noble lord, the former home secretary said, they are not fit for purpose. what are they going to do about it? well, i think i've just explained that there is a service improvement plan that will be released very, very shortly. we do always have to learn from events like this and make sure that we do improve our processes and treat people properly. lady williams.

a committee of mps is looking at how the uk can adapt to climate change, specifically the impact of heatwaves. the recent spell of warm weather over much of the country was a sharp reminder that even in the uk temperatures can hit the high 30's celsius, and long dry spells, in both summer and winter can have already have a dramatic impact on the environment. so how prepared are we? so we've been looking at future scenarios both in terms of climate change, that is just one of the pressures on water sources, the other being population growth and also the needs of the environment and how we might need to reduce obstruction to protect the environment. and that does show that there is an increasing risk of drought without intervention. something in the region of about 1% per year of a serious drought. 1% of what? a 1% risk. 0k. thank you. of severe drought, that is.

as i understand it, the majority of the cost the water company faces is to do with water treatment, the pipes, and the sewage treatment works. so if we go persuade everybody to reduce their water consumption by 25%, does that mean that bills will have to go up to compensate? so, i suppose just a very quick point. not everyone knows this. the majority of costs for water companies are actually on the waste waterside, and you have to recycling water as well. that's the bulk of the costs, about 60—40, normally for a water and sewage company. going to the question about if we can deliver demand reduction. i suppose when we look in our water resources, management plan, and indeed in our business plans we very much have this twin track approach which is driving down demand in an orderly fashion and then putting in place additional supply.

so this point about having more ability to move water between areas. we don't have a national grid in water so some of what we're proposing would be to improve interconnectivity within the region and to other regions but also more storage. so 25% reduction in usage comes with a bill, i'm afraid, as indeed does the supply side. and that's it for now, but do join me at the same time tomorrow for another round up of the day in the commons and the lords, including the highlights from prime minister's questions. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. hello again, good morning. nearly all of us still look like being dry through the rest of this week and into the weekend as well. the temperatures are going to change a bit and we've got some chilly

nights on the way, but here in hampshire, we had the highest temperature on tuesday, 23.7 celsius, but the next few days will be cooler by day as well as by night, but a lot of dry weather and some sunshine around as well. now, the cooler air comes around this area of high pressure following that weather front there. ahead of that weather front, we've got some stronger winds, making it feel chillier across many parts of england and wales, together with all this cloud, so cloudier skies. on the weather front itself, there's not much rain around, as you can see, at all. as you head further north, increasing amounts of sunshine, perhaps in north wales, certainly across northern england and some good sunny spells for scotland and northern ireland, where temperatures will be lower across the board than they were on tuesday, and quite a significant drop for eastern scotland. quite a chilly wind blowing into the evening and overnight across eastern and south—eastern parts of england. the cloud tends to break up and remember, we've pushed in some cooler air, so with the clearer skies, temperatures will fall away. it'll be a chillier night in the south. and in scotland and northern ireland, we could be starting at 12 degrees on thursday morning

but plenty of sunshine around. probably infilling a bit of cloud for scotland and northern ireland on thursday but a dry day, the winds not as strong across the south. it will feel just a little bit warmer. maybe those temperatures not showing too much sign of creeping up just yet, but i think it'll be a bit warmer on friday. high pressure still in charge of our weather, these weather fronts not really making much progress into the uk, it's the western isles that'll see more cloud, maybe a spot of rain on friday, otherwise a dry day with some sunshine, maybe seeing a little bit more cloud developing across east anglia and the south—east on friday but tending to become a bit warmer, as i say, so18, 19 degrees through the central belt of scotland, similar temperatures across parts of southern england as well. now, into the weekend, i've put the jet stream on here because the position of the jet stream means we're steering areas of low pressure to the north—west of the uk, keeping that high pressure firmly in charge. now, there are some showers nearby over the near continent. we're not expecting them to arrive in windsor or in the south—east of england. should be fine for the royal wedding. there'll be fair bit of cloud,

mind you, but it'll be a bit warmer, temperatures 20, maybe even 21 degrees. a decent day pretty much across the board on saturday. even into sunday and monday, very little rain heading our way. it's mostly high pressure, quite warm in the sunshine. the winds, if anything, coming in from the near continent. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. i'm lewis vaughan jones. our top stories: north korea suspends talks with the south, telling it to cancel military exercises with the united states. funerals in gaza for the almost 60 palestinians killed by israeli forces. politicians and diplomats abroad call for peace, but real peace talks ended, failed, a long time ago. latest reports say meghan markle‘s father will have heart surgery in a few hours and won't attend the royal wedding on saturday.

author, journalist and chronicler of 1980s america tom wolfe has died at the age of 88.