the eruption of kilauea volcano on hawaii's big island has entered a more violent phase. experts say lava is now flowing twice a fast as it was earlier in the eruption and fountains of molten rock are reaching 180 metres in the air. around 2,000 people have already left their homes. the us has vowed to impose the "strongest sanctions in history" on iran. the us secretary of state mike pompeo says iran will be "battling to keep its economy alive." his iranian counterpart has claimed the us is a prisoner of its "failed policies" and will suffer the consequences. the public inquiry into the grenfell tower fire has opened and began with a 72—second silence to commemorate those who died. the construction company behind the refurbishment told the bbc that it did not test the cladding which burnt rapidly because it was thought to comply with regulations. now on bbc news it's time for monday in parliament. hello and welcome to

monday in parliament. the main news from westminster: as the public inquiry into the grenfell tower fire begins, labour demands more action, more clarity and more urgency from the government. it's a matter of deep regret, mr speaker, that i must drag ministers to parliament, again, to explain their response to the grenfell tower disaster. the speaker responds to reports that he called a cabinet minister a "stupid woman". i used the word "stupid" in a muttered aside. that adjective simply summed up how i felt about the way that that day's business had been conducted. and amid pressure to reduce the size of the house of lords, peers play their version of the survival game. what we're still waiting for is some retirements from the liberal democrats.

but first, nearly a year after the grenfell tower fire, the public inquiry into the tragedy has begun. relatives of the 72 people who died are being given the chance to commemorate their loved ones during the inquiry. their tributes were moving and powerful. among the first to speak was marcio gomes, whose son logan was stillborn in hospital after his family escaped the fire. and the sister of denis murphy, anne marie, described him as the "linchpin to our family". meanwhile, in the commons, mps marked the start of the public inquiry. the housing secretary said everyone needed to reflect extremely carefully on the testimony given by the victims' relatives. we are remembering those who lost their lives in the tragedy at grenfell tower today as the public inquiry opens. i know this will be an incredibly difficult time for all those affected. the whole house willjoin me, i'm sure, in sending them our thoughts and prayers,

and i am determined to ensure that no community suffers again as they have done. it is vital that people living in buildings like grenfell tower are safe and feel safe. i'm confident that the work we are undertaking and the important reforms triggered by the hackitt review will help restore confidence and provide the legacy that the grenfell communities need and deserve. john healey. mr speaker, as the secretary of state has said, on this first day of the commemoration hearings at the grenfell tower inquiry, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives, and we will not forget our special duty as members of parliament to do right by them. so it's a matter of deep regret, mr speaker, that i must drag ministers to parliament, again, to explain their response to the grenfell tower disaster. the government has been off the pace at every stage since the fire. more than 11 months

on from grenfell, how is it that two—thirds of the grenfell survivors are still in hotels or temporary accommodation? mr speaker, many people will only yesterday have learned that the london fire service have fundamentally changed their safety advice to residents in blocks still wrapped with the same gre nfell—style cladding. in place of "stay put", if a fire breaks out — strong advice given for decades to all residents in all tower blocks across the country, including those in grenfell tower — the london fire brigade now says, "get out." directly. do all fire brigades now give the same advice? do all residents in all blocks with unsafe cladding know this? and i say to the minister, more action, more clarity, more urgency are now required from the government. the housing secretary said he wanted

to speed up the process. there is no lack of urgency on my part, or on the part of my department, in terms of moving forward with these issues, underlining and recognising the serious concerns that have been expressed, and equally, that desire that i have underlined to do the right thing in relation to issues of fire safety, why we will be taking actions that i've outlined last week and underlined again today to ensure that we are following this through and pursuing it rigorously. as we approach the one—year anniversary, it is necessary to look at all necessary regulation changes and implementation of pre—emptive systems. can he confirm that these will be planned and that the review of all at—risk buildings will be included in this? we have ta ken steps to identify at—risk buildings, and as i pointed out, we have last week set out a further

direction aimed at local housing authorities in england, to support them in their work through that statutory declaration. there are some local authorities that have still more work to do, and that is why we have committed a sum around £1.3 million to support local authorities to move as swiftly as possible, to identify and to see that remediation takes place. james brokenshire announced last week that he'd be consulting on whether to ban the use of combustible cladding. i've just come from the grenfell inquiry this morning, and one of the survivors said to me, "if it was thought that combustible cladding was responsible for the fire and had to come down, why is it that it's not banned?" can the secretary of state give some timetable as to when combustible cladding will finally be banned? well, i say to the right honourable gentleman i understand and hear very clearly the call that has been made. there are certain statutory obligations to consult under the buildings act,

which is why i've said that i minded to make this change subject to the consultation. my officials are working at pace in relation to getting that consultation out, because i hear the very clear message he is giving about the urgency of this. what advice does the secretary of state have to landlords who are replacing cladding now? perhaps the reason only seven blocks have been re—clad is because landlords don't know what to do. given he said he's minded to ban combustible cladding, why doesn't he put in a provisional ban in place now and advise landlords to use only non—combustible cladding? there are legal restrictions on me in terms of obligations under the building act to consult in relation to changes on building systems and regulation. i would underline, though, as damejudith points out, that the safest approach is to use non—combustible materials. and that, i think, is the very clear advice. james brokenshire. the speakerjohn bercow has been defending remarks he made "in a muttered aside"

about the government's management of parliamentary business. it was reported that mr bercow called the leader of the commons, andrea leadsom, "a stupid woman". in his statement, mr bercow admitted using the word "stupid", but he didn't accede to calls for an apology. last wednesday, the government chose to schedule a major transport statement on an opposition day, thereby substantially reducing the time available for opposition business. i thought then, as i think now, that this was very badly handled. it was in particular disrespectful, both to the house and to the 23 backbenchers who were hoping to participate in the opposition day debate on the grenfell tower disaster. it was in that context, and that context alone, that, having expressed my displeasure about the matter quite forcefully from the chair, i used the word "stupid" in a muttered aside.

that adjective simply summed up how i felt about the way that that day's business had been conducted. anyone who knows the leader of the house at all well will have not the slightest doubt about her political ability and her personal character. he said he'd continue to speak out, if necessary, against the government. i love this house. i respect all of my colleagues. i hold you all in the highest esteem. it is our duty to get on with the business of parliament, scrutinising legislation, debating issues and standing up for the people we are here to represent. for my part, i shall continue to speak out firmly

for the interests of the whole house. and if from time to time, it involves publicly disagreeing with the government's management of business, then so be it. a few minutes later, the government was in the firing line, again, over its treatment of parliament. ministers faced accusations that they were using a procedural trick to block a private member's bill that would effectively halt plans to cut the number of mps. labour mp's afzal khan's bill cannot go forward without what's known as a money resolution, and ministers are refusing to submit one. in an emergency debate, mr khan attacked that decision. this is an abuse of parliament. the government is making a mockery of the private member's bill process.

they are defying the will of parliament and going against explicit commitments to a select committee. these are the actions of a weak government hiding behind procedure to avoid a vote that they know they cannot win. mr khan's bill won unanimous backing when it was first debated, and he said the granting of a money resolution should have been a formality. it is an established parliamentary convention that the government brings forward a money resolution to a private member's bill which has received second reading. until recently, the government largely followed this convention. they are now running roughshod over it. it is for the government to initiate financial resolutions, to commit taxpayers' money, and it is not without precedent to not bring forward a money resolution where the government

believes that it's not in the taxpayers' interest to do so at the present time. that is not without precedent. this seems to me to be rather straightforward. parliament enacted a boundary review which is currently in progress. it will report in the autumn. to grant public money to start another boundary review would be grossly irresponsible of this house when that money — the money in the honourable gentleman's proposal — would be equivalent of 300 new nurses. yes, my honourable friend is exactly right. the point about this is there is duplication involved in the honourable member's bill which cannot be supported because of the cost that it would impose on the taxpayer. her constitutional duty is to be parliament's representative in the cabinet. this parliament voted overwhelmingly to proceed this bill. what representations did she make in the cabinet to defend this bill and promote a money resolution as parliament had voted for? well, i can only say to the honourable gentleman,

as i set out at the start of my remarks, that i am fully committed to taking into account all the views expressed across this house. i have done and will continue to do so. what they are trying to do is to keep an unfair electoral distribution which the boundary review is looking at now, so that we can actually have a fair distribution of numbers among constituencies. as it happens, that would disadvantage the labour party. all they're trying to do is delay the proper democratic boundary permission process for their own party advantage. this is about democracy — what price democracy. mr speaker, my honourable friend, the member for manchester gorton's committee has now met three times but has not been able to consider a single clause of the bill. the committee is due to meet again on wednesday, the 23rd of may. will the leader please ensure and expedite a money resolution which can be brought to the house? why are we accepting this? why are we prepared to allow this

government to block democratic decisions of this house, to stop something that is clearly popular? now, i've got a very neat and elegant solution to this, mr speaker. take it out of the hands of government. if you have a private member's bill that has passed a second reading, an automatic money resolution must therefore follow. you're watching monday in parliament, with me, kristina cooper. some mps have criticised the government's decision to abstain in a vote at the united nation for its human rights council to set up an independent investigation into the protests at the israeli—gaza border. nearly 60 palestinians were killed in the violence last monday. the council voted the resolution through with 29 in favour and two opposed. 14 states, including the uk, abstained. the foreign office minister alistair burt was summoned

to the commons to explain why. we abstained on calls for a commission of inquiry into recent violence in gaza during the un human rights council session on friday. the substance of the resolution was not impartial and it was unbalanced. we could not support an investigation that refused to explicitly examine the action of non—state actors such as hamas. an investigation of this kind would not provide us with a comprehensive assessment of accountability. it would risk hardening positions on both sides and move us further away from a just and lasting resolution to the israeli—palestinian conflict. the crux of that decision was made clear in the government statement on friday, which called for the israeli authorities to be allowed to conduct their own so—called independent inquiry. if that sounds like a contradiction in terms, mrspeaker, i am afraid we should not be remotely surprised. after all, this is the government that says saudi arabia should be allowed to investigate itself for bombing

weddings in yemen. this is the government that says bahrain should be left to investigate itself for torturing children in prisons. time and time again, we see this. if you are an ally with the government, you get away with breaking international law with impunity and you can also be allowed to be your ownjudge and jury, too. it was a disgraceful decision that the uk abstained from the human rights council, and it flies in the face of previous statements from the prime minister and other ministers in this house, calling for an independent investigation. now, at the start of the year, the government announced that everyone receiving the main disability benefit, the personal independence payment, would be having their claim reviewed. the re—examination of the 1.2 million claims is expected to take several years. in the meantime, ministers are still under pressure over problems that some claimants are facing. i have been helping identical twins who have the same genetic condition involving learning disabilities and associated health problems.

both were for assessed pip at different times by different assessors and one was granted pip and one was rejected. this case has now been resolved but can't the minister see that the system is totally unfit for purpose and needs overhauling? when will the government do this? can ijust say that the very fact that the honourable lady said the case had been resolved shows that the system is working. it is very important, it is very important to me that we make the right decision the first time and i have set in place a whole series of improvements to pip. we have followed the advice given to us by the independent review of pip and are working at pace to make the necessary changes. i have a young constituent who has pku, a rare inherited disorder which requires strict diet and treatment for life. she had been in recepit of dla but now she has turned 16, she has scored zero in every category in pip. would the minister consider to meet with me and my constituent so we can

iron out this clear case of " computer says no. " i would be absolutely delighted to meet the honourable lady and to go through this constituency case. ministers are considering a ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and third party dealers in england. more than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for a change in the law — enough to force a debate in westminster hall. it follows a campaign for ‘lucy‘s law‘ inspired by the case of lucy. the cavalier king charles spaniel, lucy, endured a miserable start to her life. her poor body had been ravaged after cruel puppy farmers eager to sell as many young as they could, and they forced lucy to go through an obscene number of pregnancies in the pursuit of profit and greed. vets advise that dogs should only have four litters in their lifetime and reproduce no more than once every year, but by the time lucy had become useless to her breeders, at the age of five, she would have had up to ten litters, with her puppies being ripped from her at four weeks.

half the time that vets recommend. after spending so much time pregnant in a tiny cage, lucy could barely walk. the petition had highlighted wider problems with puppy breeding. poor hygiene standards through the chain frequently mean many puppies are infected with bacteria, viruses and parasites that can in some cases be tra nsmittable to humans. for example, rabies and inappropriately vaccinated imported pups. they all exhibit significant behavioural issues such as separation anxiety, house soiling and nervous aggression. it is not known how many puppies die before they are even sold. the puppy market is very lucrative, which means a big financial incentive for breeders and sellers to minimise costs in order to maximise profits. mps highlighted the scale of the problem. a number of people have talked to me about how they were taken in by the sob stories of families in a flat that could no longer keep the puppy and they had to give it away and had children were roped into, a farce, a deception, etc.

we all have to be really aware the lengths that people will go to, to exploit not only the animal but the person they are selling to and we need to be more aware, but the government really does need to legislate in order to give us the teeth by which we can keep them all safe. while we carry on talking, debating, and procrastinating, dogs are suffering every minute of the day, how much longer must they wait for us to end this barbaric third—party puppy dealing? every single day is one too many. i support lucy's law and if you really care, you will too. imagine for a moment a small child who is told that they are going to get their first pet. the puppy that they have nagged their parents, and believe me, i have been there, they have nagged their parents for incessantly. they go, they fall in love with that puppy, they take it home, only to discover

that it might not survive. and if it does survive, it has been so horribly abused that it may never be sociable. it may be never be properly house—trained. the simple fact is, unless the ministry can tell us, we don't really know how many people are out there operating, which is an awful thing to say. and of course, that is because many of these people are not operating in this country at all. they are operating, dare i say, as we said, through south of ireland, but also eastern europe, so these animals get here through the most perilous of journeys. the minister said the government had tightened regulations, and asked for evidence on whether there should be a ban. i can tell honourable members, and i'm sure they will be pleased to know that we do anticipate that we are likely to bring forward a consultation based on the early feedback that we have had from the call for evidence, but honourable members will have to wait a little longer to see further details of that. there's general agreement

that there are too many members of the house of lords. so, the prime minister's decision to appoint some new conservative peers has not gone down well in some quarters. labour's lord adonis called it a flagrant breach of the constitution. but the minister, lord young insisted that theresa may had shown commendable restraint. when the labour party left office in 2010, as majority of government, labour had 26 more peers than the conservatives. now, as a minority government, the conservatives have 63 more peers than labour, more than twice as many, and the prime minister has just published a list of peers three times as many conservatives as labour. does the noble lord agree that this is a clear and flagrant breach of the constitution? could he tell us why he thinks it is justified for the conservatives to have 63 more peers than labour? and can i ask him,

when the prime minister said that brexit was about taking back control, did she mean the conservative party seizing control of the state in the interest of the conservative party alone? there is no constitutional concept that there has to be some degree of parity between the main opposition and government parties in your lordship's house. the prime minister is showing commendable restraint. it is the smallest dissolution on this list since 1979. and standing back, if you look at the number of peers who have retired, 50% of those retiring from the political groups have been conservatives, and if you look at the fact that even when these new appointments, my party will only represent 31% of your lordship's house. i do not agree with the acquisition made by the noble lord about unfairness. a report last year by the independent peer lord burns recommended a gradual trimming

of the lords from 800 members to 600. on these benches, we have lost 12 colleagues since the last election, more than any other group in your lordship's house. burns recommended the appointment of peers should reflect departures. two out, just one in, and better reflecting the votes of the previous election. my lords, as i have been clear, we are ready for that. including all departures and appointments since 2017 election. so when will the government generally make the same commitment? so far as reducing the size of the house is concerned, if one puts on one side the appointments which the prime minister inherited from david cameron, and puts on one side the hereditary peers by election, there have been 59 departures and 21 appointments since she became prime minister. that is well within the two out, one in ratio recommended by lord burns. so far as representation is concerned, my party got 42%

of the vote, we have 31% of the membership of your lordship's house. compared with some other parties, i will maintain my party is still underrepresented in your lordship's house. my lords, if the burns report is to be implemented, it is crucial the prime minister follows its proposals when making appointments. the letter to which the noble lord referred from the prime minister simply says that she will operate with restraint and allocate peerages fairly. could he encourage her to be, to give a firmer commitment to the burns principle, if he wishes other parties to support them going forward with the same degree of enthusiasm with which we have in the past? so far as going forward is concerned, the prime minister has made it absolutely clear that there are going to be no more automatic peerages. as i said, if you look at the number

of peers since she became premise there, the house is now smaller than it was that she became prime minister. so i think she is on track to deliver that commitment. what we are still waiting for is some retirements from liberal democrats. lord young, with his own suggestion there, on how to reduce the number of peers. and that brings us to the end of monday in parliament. alicia mccarthy will be here for the rest of the week, but from me, kristiina cooper, goodbye! the weather is not looking bad at all really over the next few days. we can't guarantee completely dry weather. then again, we need a bit of rain at least from time to time. and on tuesday, in fact, there is a risk of some downpours with thunder across the south of the uk in particular. as far as the short—term

is concerned, the next few hours, fairly quiet across the uk. there's a bit of cloud across the north—west here where we have a weather front — that's across northern ireland and scotland. it is a very weak weather front which means it is mostly cloud and not an awful lot of rain at all. so the early hours of tuesday morning — a few spots of rain there across scotland to the south of the country we've got clear skies and not cold at all, 12 in london. a bit fresher in the north—west of scotland, only around four degrees. but let's have a look at the weather first thing in the morning, and it is looking great but there is a chance of some showers across kent and sussex, for example, maybe even the london area, but the vast majority of the country is looking dry. not necessarily sunny everywhere. a bit more cloud in the north—east there, some across scotland, also partly cloudy skies in northern ireland as well. so that is the north of the country here where we have a bit of the cloud. to the south, sunshine. and then later in the morning, into the afternoon, the clouds will continue to develop

so is the risk of a few downpours, particularly across southern areas, possibly in the midlands as well. and a warm one for many of us — across the south of the country into the 20s, a little bit colder north. how about the chelsea flower show? it is looking fine, temperatures could hit the mid 20s but there is a chance of rain by the time we get to thursday. looking at the forecast for the middle part of the week, it will be a good week with high—pressure extending all the way from scandinavia into the uk. chances are that will be a little bit of cloud early in the morning across some of these north—eastern areas, possibly along that north sea coast down into east anglia, but it will be a warm one for many of us. where you see those oranges, those are temperatures well into the 20s and 23 or 2a in london, in the north of the country, mid or high teens, possibly even 20. in edinburgh.

in the next couple of days, thursday into friday, temperatures probably levelling off across the country further south, down to around 22 in london with a risk of one or two showers. having a look at the forecast on saturday, things are set to warm up widely across europe and temperatures could really be hitting the mid, possibly even the high 20s across the south come bank holiday weekend. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. our top stories: the threat from hawaii's kilauea volcano continues — people are told to stay indoors due to the danger of toxic gases. a warning to tehran — america's secretary of state vows to impose "the strongest sanctions in history" on iran. the inquiry into the deadly grenfell tower fire gets underway with harrowing testimony from relatives of the victims. at that moment... we felt like our hearts had broken.

and delving into the royal wedding album — official portraits of the happy couple on their big day have been released.