in a shooting at the offices of a daily newspaper. officers say the gunman — who has been arrested — was carrying out a targeted attack. us media say the suspect was jarrod ramos, a man in his late thirties who had tried and failed to sue the paper for defamation. european union leaders in brussels are trying to resolve deep divisions over the issue of migration. italy has said it will refuse to sign any concluding statement unless the summit agrees to share responsibility for the asylum seekers arriving on its coast. the date and location are officially set. president trump will meet vladimir putin in helsinki onjuly 16th. the two have met at international summits, but this is the first planned trip for bilateral talks. mr trump says they'll focus on us—russia relations and that he will also bring up syria and ukraine. now on bbc news, thursday in parliament. hello, and welcome to

thursday in parliament. coming up: mps from across the commons demand urgent action on social care. if we on a cross party basis, can unanimously reach difficult decisions and make clear recommendations, can't you do the same? as theresa may arrives at an eu summit, there's a fresh warning in the commons that time is running out for the brexit talks. the committee remains concerned that the looming deadline of march next year leaves very little footti for manoeuvre. and the government defends its record on tackling air pollution. the uk is already acknowledged as a global leader of ultralow emission vehicles. one in eight electric cars sold in europe in 2017 was made in the uk. but first, a cross party group

of mps has set out a blueprint to fund social care in england, and challenged the government to get on and implement it. the communities and health committees worked together on thejoint report. setting out their findings, the chair of the communities committee said they wanted the government and the opposition to accept them. clive betts said with demand for services growing and funding cuts, social care was under, "unsustainable strain" with a £2.5 billion funding gap. leading to people going without the they need, those getting the care not getting sufficient care in terms of time or quality, leading to unpaid carers having to step into the breach, and placing significant pressures on care providers and the care workforce. a witness to the inquiry, andrew dilot, told us the system was consequently now at risk of "fairly significant disaster", very strong words indeed. and clive betts said the committee had concluded that billions

of pounds of extra funding would be needed in the coming years. the two committees, with the help of what was called a "citizen's assembly", produced a unanimous report. it suggested raising money locally through changes to council and business taxes in the short to medium term and raising money nationally through a ring—fenced tax on the over—40s in england. forfairness, it would be paid on earnings above a threshold, and with the current national insurance limit being lifted. we suggest this premium could either be an additional element to national insurance, which to ensure the accountability desired by the public and the citizens assembly, should be placed in an appropriately—named and dedicated fund, regularly and independently audited. all repaid into independent insurance funds similar to the german model. we strongly believe that a funding solution was fair between generations. we recommend that those aged under a0 should be

exempt from the premium, and paid by those still working after the age of 65. we also recommend that a specified additional amount of inheritance tax should be levied on all esstates above a certain threshold, and capped at a percentage of the total value. this is intended to avoid the catastrophic cost for some individuals who currently have to lose the vast majority of their assets, including their homes, to pay for care costs. i say on behalf of select committees to both front—benchers, if we on a cross—party cross, cross—committee basis can unanimously reach difficult decisions and make clear recommendations, can't you do the same? use our proposals as a basis for building that wider consensus, which we need to create a long—term, sustainable funding solution for those who need care now and in the future. the situation cannot be more stark. and as next week, we approach 70th anniversary of the nhs,

i wonder if my honourable friend could say more about the impact on the nhs if we fail to address the unmet need in social care? i think that's one of the important recommendations of trying to extend the scope of care provision to include those with moderate needs. if you provide care for people of moderate needs, it will likely stop them getting into the substantial and critical phase, and ending up in hospital in the first place. when we visited a care home, this parliament was accused of a lack of courage by the residents and families of those receiving care, for not having addressed this difficult issue for so long. does he agree with me that there is a real sense of urgency, and when the government does produce its green paper in the autumn, we need to get on with it? there's no reason we can't move this forward quite quickly, as he said, germany has done it since 1994, and it frankly shames his country that had a good system in place

for so long while we haven't. i think if we're still talking us in 2—3 years‘ time, we will have failed. we need to get some decisions and get on with it. in his report, he specifically says that under—405 should be exempt from the social care premium. and the argument from the older generation will be that they have paid taxes throughout their lives, why should they be unfairly burdened? what's the experience in germany with regards to the social care premium? do they exempt people under 40? it's a difficult position. they don't in germany, they have other tweaks to the system like people without children pay extra, and people who are not working pay more... so we haven'tjust mirrored the german system absolutely, we've taken elements from it, which i think is quite right. injapan they have a similar system which actually restricts payments to those over a0. so we've looked at different systems.

it is a challenge, but we felt in the end that there were considerable pressures on younger people at this point in time. family pressures, housing pressures, job pressures, and we felt that to start at a0 was a reasonable benchmark, bearing in mind for the vast majority of people, it will mean they pay into their care system at some point in their lives. the minister said what had been produced was an "exceptional document". for too long, this situation has been used as a political football to kick around, and it's too late for that now, we no longer have that luxury. we have to come to a sufficient settlement for that. successive governments, she continued, had failed to act, and the government would come forward with its ideas at the same time as a plan for the nhs, but she didn't say when that would be. theresa may has said both the uk and eu want to work towards a future brexit deal "at a faster pace", after being warned that time is running out. arriving at an eu summit, the prime minister said "very good progress" had been made

on a withdrawal agreement. theresa may will brief the other eu leaders for the last time before october, when both sides hope a deal will be done on the uk's departure in march next year. meanwhile, an influential group of mps has warned that time is running out to agree a brexit deal. the brexit committee is worried that parliament won't have enough time to approve any agreement. it wants mps to be given a bigger role in the process and has repeated calls for a meaningful vote in parliament. the first thing i want to say is that time is very, very tight. even if we get a withdrawal agreement and political decoration at the october counsel, and that must now be in doubt, the committee will expect to take evidence from the secretary of state as soon as possible thereafter so we can report to the house. and that would probably take us to about mid—november, for pa rliament‘s debate

and meaningful vote to approve the agreement. we recommend that the debate should last at least five days, which is the amount of time given in 1971 to debate whether we should join the common market. the committee remains concerned that the looming deadline of march next year leaves very little room for manoeuvre. and we call on the government to publish details of its intended legislative timetable, the publication dates of any white or green papers, and any contingency plans for a no—deal outcome. we reiterate the recommendation we made that the government should be prepared to seek a limited extension to the article 50 period, in the event either that substantive aspects of the future relationship were made to be agreed, or if there is a lack of parliamentary consent to the withdrawal agreement, or if there is no deal. however, we do recognise that it is by no means certain that the eu will respond positively to such a request.

assuming that a withdrawal agreement is concluded, we will have only 21 months from the date of our withdrawal to the end of the transition period in december 2020, in which to turn a political decoration into legal text on the future relationship. and for such a treaty, and it could be more than one treaty, to be ratified. now i think we all know that the negotiators will be dealing with a task that is frankly unparalleled in its scope, complexity, and the detail that will be required. there is a possibility that this will prove insufficient time to do all that work, and therefore we call on the government to seek a mechanism to be put into the withdrawal agreement for the extension of the transition period if that is required. parliament currently has a role in scrutinising any eu external agreement, including trade agreements.

as things stand, when we start to negotiate trade deals on our own, there's no such role for parliament to scrutinise those deals. as a result of brexit, the vote of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals will be less than it is now. can ijust ask what his response would be to the scenario whereby either the european parliament or british parliament sought to amend the withdrawal agreement, whilst the other one had approved it? that is a possibility. it's not unknown in negotiations where two parties are discussing an agreement for them to report back to their members, and return to the table to say, "i'm sorry, it didn't go terribly well with the members in this respect, can we talk about what we'll do about this"?

so it is possible that that situation might arise, and that is why we thought it important in the report to set out what we think ought to happen, which is why we say that parliament should be able to express its view, and the government should listen to that. and we should be able to offer advice, but clearly it would be for government to go back to negotiate. does he agree that it is time for brussels to move aside the politics and start thinking about the economic interests of its citizens, and move forward in a more constructive fashion with the negotiations? it's not directly covered in the report, but i will give him a personal view, since he asked me the question. it will take two to reach an agreement. hilary benn. a leading brexit campaigner, dominic cummings, is facing an investigation by a commons committee after his repeated refusals to give evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into fake news. earlier this month, the commons took the rare steps of issuing a formal

summons to mr cummings to appear before the culture committee. but he still hasn't turned up. he has refused a motion of this house to appear in front of a select committee, which is the will notjust of me or the members of the select committee, but the whole of the house of commons who supported that motion. these are regrettably serious matters. it takes something when an individual decides theirjudgement should be set above that of the democratically elected parliament of this country. and that they have the right to disregard a motion of this house to decide if and when they give evidence to a select committee and on what terms. that's unacceptable. what the rights of the house should be when people refuse to respond to a motion of the house, and what sanctions should be applied? i believe there has to be a final sanction, a final bank stop this backs up. it's not for politicians to be issuing fines and summons, or setting the penalty or punishment for noncompliance. but there has to be some next step, there has to be some sanction for someone who is blatant

in their behaviour and in their language, and the contempt they show the parliament. ben bradshaw raised mr cummings‘ role as head of vote leave. is it not supremely telling that someone who based the whole of their brexit campaign on the sovereignty of this place has treated this place with such contempt? and as the honourable gentleman says, there have to be proper sanctions involved with the contempt of this seriousness. thank you, mr deputy speaker. ijust want to say we had a very good discussion about this at the liaison committee, and i would agree with my right honourable friend there is a supreme irony here that the mastermind of the leave campaign, whose sole goal was about taking back control, is actually turning his back on this place in a show of arrogance and contempt that cannot go on marked and unpunished. the commons passed a motion,

without a vote, to refer mr cummings to the committee of privileges. you're watching thursday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. a parliamentary committee on climate change has told the government to act faster to cut carbon dioxide emissions. led by the former conservative environment secretary, john gummer, now lord deben, the report said young people would end up footing the bill for dealing with the problem. the findings were raised by labour's shadow trade secretary, barry gardiner. the conservative committee chair set out a stark demand — act now, climate change will not pause while we consider our options, he said. in response to this can the secretary of state explain why it is that on the latest figures 99.a% of the support that uk export finance gives to the energy sector goes to fossil fuels. the trade secretary, liam fox,

said uk export finance was used to promote a range of environmental issues and he'd been in norway just last week to talk about the use of renewables. but there was more pressure on the government over its emmissions policies later, when a minister came to the commons to answer an urgent question about a £200 million deal with the nuclear sector to drive down the costs of nuclear power and fund innovation. this announcement, though, is mostly a repackaging of existing policy. of the headlined £200 million, it seems only £10 million is new government funding. and on top of that he said funding for small nuclear reactors had been downgraded. the committee on climate change says today that the government is failing to keep up with agreed targets on decarbonisation. with this week's announcement to scrap the title lagoon,

the expansion of airport capacity and the modesty of the nuclear sector deal, can he tell us — how is the government going to meet its climate change obligations? the minister rejected the claim there was no new money for the nuclear deal. he turned to the arguments about nuclear versus tidal power. the swansea bay proposal would cost £13 billion to build, and would only have produced about .15% of the electricity we use each year. a capital cost that's more than three times as much per unit of electricity as hinkley point c. having failed the north sea in its time of need, having abandoned cost—effective carbon capture and renewable technology, why does the uk government persist with an energy policy which continues to fail scottish industry while hiking costs for consumers? the minister referred to the former mp and snp leader, alex salmond. the former member of this house, the member for gordon when he was first minister and backed the life extension

of the nuclear plants in scotland, so i'm surprised that faced with this deal they are not welcoming the jobs in the supply chain from which scotland will benefit. yes, we are fixing a nuclear, but it's part of a balanced approach to making sure we have the energy sources we need to. mr speaker, the minister mentions that it's the government's priority to build the infrastructure the country needs, but with barely a mention of climate change, this announcement must feel like hollow words to the people of south wales in the west coming as it does the same week as the decision not to support the swansea bay tidal lagoon. so, when is this government going to recognise the huge untapped potential of tidal energy and to get serious about climate change? i've already made it very clear that this government has succeeded in cutting our emissions while increasing the... the nuclear sector deal is part of our ambition for cleaner growth in this country. what will the impact be

of the measures associated with this deal on the cost of new nuclear power stations, and of decommissioning former nuclear sites? a very good question. the consequence of this deal for cost is that it should reduce the cost of decommissioning, obviously while maintaining the highest standards of safety, but it will also bring us up to date with modern methods. earlier in the programme we heard calls from the chairs of two commons committees for the government to act more urgently on social care. well there was also pressure on the government to act faster on the issue of air quality and pollution. once again two committee chairsjoined forces — this time to say that government plans were inadequate. the uk has failed to meet our legal air—quality limits since 2010, and successive governments have failed to get a grip and improve our air quality. mr deputy speaker, air pollution is a silent killer.

it is our largest environmental risk to public health, costing the uk some estimated £20 billion every year in health impacts. air pollution affects everyone, from those driving their cars, to those who walk or cycle to work. and especially in many hotspots in our inner cities. the committees, he said, believed that a "polluters pay" approach was needed. but this is not a war on motorist. we envision this fund will be paid by the automobile industry. i do not want to punish those who bought diesel vehicles, recommended by previous governments. the consumer who bought these vehicles in good faith will need time and support to rectify the mistakes and recommendations of our previous governments. this is rather a sorry tale

of inaction and book passing. fault does not lie with one party, but successive governments, but efforts so far have been inadequate and characterised by a lack of urgency. we know the problems that poor air quality causes — it affects our health and environment. as has already been said as many as 40,000 people each year die prematurely as a result of poor air quality. the elderly, the unwell and the economically deprived are those most likely to be affected, and as has already been said the government estimates poor air quality cost the uk economy {27.5 billion a year. we know what causes poor air quality, it comes from several sources — industry, agriculture, homes, businesses and transport. progress has been made, but it is stalling and we are in breach of our legal obligations. but the minister insisted the government was tackling the problem.

air pollution whether it's from transport, domestic heating or agriculture affects us all. it's the fourth biggest threat to public health in the uk after cancer, obesity and heart disease, and we are doing and we will do more. we have committed 3.5 billion in funding already for cleaner air and cleaner transport. that money includes almost 1.5 billion to support the uptake of ultralow emission vehicles — one of the most competent the programmes of support in the world. and the uk is already acknowledged as a global leader in ultralow emission vehicle — one in eight electric cars sold in europe in 2017 was made in the uk. the chair of another commons committee, pointed to the example of norwary. they have planned to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2025. this is a country that was founded on the oil and gas industry whose sovereign wealth fund is now withdrawing from all oil and gas investments.

why can't we show similar leadership in this country? i understand the point she is making, and we are taking forward a very strong commitment. as i said, only six other countries... if i can answer her question. only six other countries in the world are moving more quickly than the uk on ending petrol and diesel, and of the uk is moving faster than almost every other country in the eu, as well as many other countries like the us and australia. david rutley. the government has said the legislation governing elections is not fit for purpose. the uk's election watchdog has called for urgent action to make online political advertising more honest and transparent. does the noble lord agree with me that our legislation around elections or referendums has not kept pace technological advances and risk interference from abroad, and are generally not fit for purpose? yes. we have an analogue legislative process in a digital age. we do need to bring that up to date.

i think it makes sense to wait for the outstanding court cases which are currently before the courts. i think it makes sense to await the outcome of the inquiry into the impact of the fake news on modern democracy. once we have this, we can step back and have a look at the legislative framework and see how it is best brought up to date. has the government yet had chance to consider the publication this week by bloomberg of the report relating to referendum night, where the use by hedge funds of secret, unpublished exit polling created hundreds of millions of pounds of profit, aided and abetted by the lies told by farage about what he knew about the exit polls and the result. my understanding is that what happened was not illegal, because the information was not put into the public domain on election day.

lord young. this week, doctors at the british medical association's annual conference backed a motion calling on the government to provide free tampons and sanitary towels and end what's been called "period poverty". when mps discussed the issue, a labour member, danielle rowley, who'd hurried into the chamber, made an announcement. perhaps you'll excuse me for my lateness, that today i'm on my period. and it has cost me this week already £25. we know the average cost of a period in the uk over a year, £500. many women cannot afford this. what is the minister doing to address period poverty? as i say, we have invested £1.5 million in the brook young people project — let's talk period — supporting young women and girls on managing their menstruation and providing free products if appropriate, and the government is committed to removing the vat rate on sanitary products when we leave the eu,

which will help with the cost of sanitary products. the ministerfor women. victoria atkins. and that's it from me for now, but dojoin me on bbc parliament on friday night at 11pm for a round up of the week at westminster. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. hello there. on thursday, all four nations of the uk recorded a temperature above 30 degrees, so can we keep that up through the next few days? can that up through the next few days? we do that int

this can we do that in the next as? hijab this will turn slightly cooler. —— well, it is going to stayjust about dry, there'll be some sunshine around, but northern areas are going to turn just a little bit cooler. high pressure still with us, but it is drifting northwards. the flow of winds around high pressure in this clockwise direction, and that will allow us to tap into some slightly cooler air, sitting a long way up to the north, but some of that is just going to try to fringe its way in towards parts of scotland in particular. having said that, we start 50 degrees in glasgow. similar in london. further east, more in the way of cloud. where is in the last two days can be cloud has retreated out to sea, i suspect it might be a bit more stubborn during friday. were it lingers across the eastern coasts, it will feel a bit cooler. cooler generally across scotland, but having said that glasgow still getting to 26 degrees. the west, parts of west wales and the western side of northern ireland could again hit 30. during friday night, the cloud in the east will roll further west. clear skies remains of northern ireland, wales, and in the south—west temperatures dipping between nine and a0 degrees for the

first part of saturday morning. high pressure is still about in charge. but a couple of subtle weather features. these were the front tried to bring cloud into the north—west without much success. this area of low pressure will come into play a little later in the weekend. saturday is a beautiful looking day. lots of sunshine to be had. even those eastern areas which could have been cloudy on friday should be brighter on saturday. a bit cooler close to the glossy coasts. the victories in the south as well, with temperatures to lead to the high 20s for many. i mentioned the high pressure to the south. they will try to drift north on sunday. that could bring some showers into southern and western parts of the uk. for the south—west, wales, possibly northern ireland, there could be possible showers and thunderstorms clipping through. these, dry, sunny, and humid. averages climbing to 30 degrees or perhaps even a touch higher across parts of the south—east. then we get into next week. very little changes. lots of

dry weather and sunshine. more heat and humidity to come as well. welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: a gunman opens fire at a local newspaper in annapolis, maryland killing 5 people, injuring 2 more. a wave of deadly violence in mexico. more than 130 politicians have been murdered, ahead of sunday's elections. we have a special report. england loses 1—0 to belgium, finishing second in their group, meaning their next match will be against colombia. plus — majestic michaeljackson. how the singer wanted to be seen. a new exhibit reveals his last portrait. hello.