the 12 boys and their coach trapped in flooded underground tunnels in northern thailand have been receiving treatment in hospital, found by british divers last week. president trump has begun a trip to europe by intensifying his criticism of america's european allies, sending out a series of tweets claiming eu nations were not spending enough on the road and defence. he will attend a nato summit later. football — and we now know the identity of at least one team playing in the world cup final. it's france — who beat belgium in the first semi—final in st petersburg. samuel umtiti getting the only goal of the game. read more online. now on bbc news, tuesday in parliament. hello and welcome to the programme.

coming up. the liberal democrat leader calls for the public to be given the final say on any brexit deal. if brexit day ever happens, it will be a day of mourning. there's anger that plans to cut the maximum stake on gaming machines could take two years. the delight with which the government's announcement was received back on the 17th of may has now turned to puzzlement and dismay. and peers say goodbye to lord carrington. you never, neverfelt other than you were dealing with someone who cared about you. but first, the political week got off to a tumultuous start. in the space of 2a hours, the brexit secretary and then the foreign secretary resigned in protest at theresa may's new plan for leaving the european union. the prime minister chaired the first meeting of her new cabinet on tuesday morning and afterwards she tweeted that she was looking ahead to a busy week.

but a few hours later, more resignations — two conservative mps who were vice—chairs of the party left. with all that to contend with, ministers probably would've liked a brexit—free day. but the liberal democrats had other ideas. they had the choice of what the commons should spend the afternoon debating. and they chose, yes, brexit. more specifically — whether a government of national unity should be established and whether there should be a referendum on the final deal. at present about 70% of the public judge that the government is handling the brexit negotiations badly. and it's been on a declining trend pretty much for the last year. the lib dem leader put the case for another referendum. the prime minister could say, "i've done the best i can to achieve a deal". it is obviously difficult with the conservative party in disarray but "i've done the best i can, i've negotiated hard with the european union". we can believe that, she's obviously conscientious. "this is what i've got, do you, the public who voted for this

originally, want to accept it or would you rather stay where we are, in the european union?" it's a perfectly honourable and sensible way for her to proceed politically. it is constitutionally sensible. it reflects the fact that conditions have changed enormously since that original vote was taken. i understand the reason many people voted leave in the referendum was they were fed up with the establishment telling them all the time that they knew better and that their voice and opinion did not matter. does he not understand that by the liberal democrats putting forward this proposition, you're just confirming to those people that they were absolutely right, that certainly when it comes to the lib dems, they think they know better than the people and the people's voice no longer matters to them. if people in fact do feel that way, then they will presumably vote the same way again, and we take the risk we lose. but the lib dems came under sustained attack from a series of conservatives.

i wanted to just reflect on what i think actually is the right thing to say in this moment and it's this, it is that the public have voted and that it would be seriously disrespectful and politically, utterly counter— productive, to say "sorry, guys, you got it wrong, let's try again". now i entirely agree with that and i wonder if the honourable member for edinburgh might also do because of course, we all know who said that, mr deputy speaker, it was the right honourable member for twickenham. i think it's a great shame that he can't stick to those words. does she agree with me that not only did we have a referendum, we had a general election where over 85% of the public voted for brexit supporting parties and just around 5% voted for the liberal democrats? what right do they have to tell us what the people are thinking? they are certainly not agreeing with the lib dems. i don't know if other people feel like this. i feel like we've disappeared down the rabbit hole in alice in wonderland with this liberal democrat motion. they are calling for a second referendum but the right honourable member for twickenham described

those who voted leave in the first referendum as, and i quote, "old people driven by nostalgia for a world of white faces". if he has so little regard for the majority of people who voted in referendum one, why on earth should we listen to him about having a second one? labour used the opportunity to bring up the government's woes. even by recent standards, this is a moment of extraordinary political chaos. within the last 36 hours, the prime minister has lost her brexit secretary, her foreign secretary, though the prime minister probably welcomed that as much as the rest of the country did, and she has lost the support of her party. she thought some things never changed in politics. we have a lib dem motion calling for a coalition with a discredited tory government and a referendum on the eu. this from a party who propped up the cameron government for five years. can she just remind the house how

many shadow front bench people has the leader of the opposition lost since he has been leader? mr deputy speaker, we've had our moments, i don't deny it, but we sit here as a brexit shadow team entirely intact from the date of formation and i do... i look over to the member for worcester, who now casts a lonely figure on the government front bench, as the sole survivor on his own team. the snp reflected on the resignations of the foreign secretary and the brexit secretary. brexiteers had their whole careers to prepare for this and then the former ministers whom i have just mentioned had two years in the highest offices of state, with every resource that the uk government has at its disposal, to build on their years and years and years of so—called preparation and yet we have this mess in which we are left in now. this complete mess.

that is why, and i don't blame the minister who is in his place entirely for this and indeed i don't blame the prime minister entirely for this, but the gross irresponsibility and negligence of those brexiteers who got us into this mess and have done absolutely nothing about getting us out of this mess again. a former lib dem leader had a fact about david davis he was keen to share. the now former secretary of state for exiting the european union spent a grand total of four hours this year negotiating the deal with michel barnier. can i inform the house that therefore i have spent more time filling in my world cup chart than the secretary of state, formerly, for exiting the european union, spent doing hisjob. must be a very detailed world cup chart. but the lib dems failed to persuade the commons that a second referendum

would be a good idea. their motion only attracted the support of 13 mps and the government won by 286 votes. the home secretary has insisted that the free movement of people will end after the uk leaves the eu. brexit supporters had expressed concern that the prime minister's blueprint for her eu negotiations mentioned a "mobility framework" which might allow uk and eu nationals to travel and work in each other‘s countries. sajid javid told mps on the home affairs committee that any trade deal was likely to include some agreements on the movement of people. but there was no question that the current arrangements would continue. when we are talking about ending free movement, we mean really ending it, not trying to have it... some parliamentarians have suggested, you know, can you sort of end it in name only and have some kind of back door arrangement? absolutely not. it will be ended in every way, no derivative, no back doors, nothing, we will be ending freedom of movement.

once that, i think, has sunk into those people who don't quite still believe it, then i think you can articulate, when you reach an eventual agreement with the eu on trade, as i said, all good trade agreements have mobility component and we will look at how that can work with the eu. help us understand more what that means, "could not be part"? if you are ending freedom of movement, what could not be part of the mobility framework? what could not be part of it is, for example, the right for someone to just of their own free choice to come and work in the uk. there will be no automatic right for anyone in the eu, for example, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, to just make a unilateral decision

that they can just hop on a plane or a ferry or something and just come and work in the uk. that will end. potentially, an eu citizen would be free to travel to the uk? of course, yes. and set up as self—employed in the uk? no, not necessarily. are you ruling out allowing scientists and doctors and highly skilled, much—needed individuals in the uk workforce from coming here without a visa and being able to get a job? are you ruling that out? yes, we are not assuming an automatic right for anyone including those people you mentioned. and you are ruling out people being able to come here and set up their own business without getting a visa first? without getting a visa, we don't anticipate allowing them without some kind of visa process. the home secretary was also asked if he was still sticking to the conservative pledge to get

annual net immigration down below 100,000. well, i'm not going to get into numbers. but you got into numbers, you set the target, we didn't, you set the target. it will be the objective to bring net migration down to sustainable levels. it is a massive chain around your neck, the net migration target, don't you want to ditch it? next question. sajid javid. you're watching tuesday in parliament with me, mandy baker. thousands of prisoners in england and wales are to be allowed to make calls from their cells, as part of government plans to reduce violence injails. the move is part of a £30 million package of measures announced by the justice secretary. currently most prisoners queue to use phones, which the minister says can trigger violence. in a separate move on friday, mps backed a bill from a conservative to stop illicit mobiles being used injails, by giving communications providers powers to disrupt their use. thejustice minister explained

why that was important. if we don't tackle mobile telephones, crimes can be committed by people within prison reaching outside the prison walls. that is both bringing illicit substances into the prisons and terrorising victims outside. can i ask what discussions he's had with the department for culture, media and sport about the implementation of this and when we are likely to see some progress on the matter? i have met with the department of culture, media and sport and we have looked at the key areas, both at devices we can use within prison walls and as the honourable member points out, both in his speech on friday and in his intervention today, there is much more we can do technologically by working with the mobile companies to identify the exact frequencies and strengths of transmissions,

to locate these mobile phones, prevent their use and analyse the traffic data. on friday we had an important debate in this house about telephony imprisons. i wonder off the back of that debate whether the minister would say what more we are doing to tackle drugs in prisons? tackling drugs in prisons involves both dealing with how you get the drugs into the prison, either over the wall or on a person, the demand within the prison and the way we search people within the walls. all of these things need to be done simultaneously, supply, demand, searching, and the key to this, mr speaker, is training, training, training. labour's shadowjustice secretary, raised a different subject — concerns over care at a youth offenders‘ centre highlighted in an 0fsted inspection report. the last inspection report at oak hill said there is no evidence that the 80 children held there are adequately cared for. oak hill is managed by gas. i've been asking parliamentary questions, mr speaker, about whether gas is meeting its contractual obligations and the answers, mr

speaker, are revealing. the contract between the secretary of state forjustice and st milton keynes limited, of which gas is an operating subcontractor, we therefore don't have information on the proportion of contractual obligations that gas has met. does the minister agree that this is yet more proof that outsourcing and privatisation should be ended in our prison system? well, it's a pleasure to answer the shadow secretary of state from the dispatch box. he does highlight an extremely important issue. i believe there's a role for the public sector, the private sector, and the voluntary and philanthropic sector, in ourjustice system. he highlights the issues at oak hill. the findings by 0fsted in the inspection report at oak hill in the last year are unacceptable. we took urgent action to address those concerns raised. we are robustly monitoring performance against the contract and i am clear that all options remain on the table. edward argar. the government is encouraging the public to use a mobile phone app to help in a crackdown on abuses at unregulated hand car—washes, in the light of fears that workers

are being exploited and could even have been trafficked. at the environmental audit committee's latest session, a conservative said he'd been made aware of the new approach. you may be aware the church of england has released an app. is it safer or advisable for individuals to be investigating these issues when there could be organised criminals and other dangerous people involved? may i welcome the clear initiatives programme. it is a simple apple mac to put on your phone. i would encourage the committee and everyone else to put it on their phone if they are in the habit of watching their car regularly. it is independently designed. having looked through it myself it is very clever. you log the location. it is on your phone, so there is no reason why the people

at the car wash would know you are doing this. it takes you through a series of questions which suggest, depending on the answers, they may suggest whether there is cause to be concerned. and if a certain number of answers come through as positive, i suppose, you are encouraged to ring the modern slavery helpline. victoria atkins. the government has faced cross—party criticism in the lords over concerns that it could take two years to cut the maximum stake on betting machines. ministers have said the highest stake on fixed—odds betting terminals — or fob—ts — will be reduced from £100 tojust £2. the delight with which the government's announcement was received on the 17th of may has turned to puzzlement and dismay. we know these machines cause bankruptcy, family breakdown and in some cases even suicide. we now hear it could take up to two years. will the minister assure us

that her majesty's government will proceed with this with alacrity, and certainly get this in place before the end of the year? the minister said the process had begun. as the previous secretary of state said last month, in order to cover any negative impact on the public finances the change needs to be linked to an increasing gaming duty at the relevant budget. you're the reason it is being held up is precisely because of the last point, which the treasury makes money out of it. this is not right. we want this change because it causes misery and ought not to continue. and it is not good enough to plead administrative difficulties. these people should stop and stop now. we completely agree, which is why we made the decision that these gaming machines cause harm. there is a process that has to be gone through when measures like this are implemented.

and of course we do have to take into account not only be harms is a gambling but also the harms to employment that will because by this. —— will caused by this. i'm surprised the benches opposite are groaning about employment. i thought they were interested in that subject. the fact is that we are engaged with stakeholders. we are keen to implement this and we will do it as soon as we can. is the noble lord and minister convinced that looking at the respective interests of the revenues, not the employment, the revenues of the gambling industry and the well—being of the 1a% of problem gamblers produced by these machines, the right decision has been taken? there is a need to engage with the industry to mitigate the impact on employment. i would love to know exactly what form of mitigation the government has in mind?

my lords, we have got an interministerial group from different departments to engage with them to discuss what the effect is on employment in different parts of the country and produce a plan. there is a limited amount we can do. but we are producing a plan to deal with that. when we have a plan i would be able to tell you about it. the education minister has been challenged over whether "redistribution has gone wrong" — because well—off families are benefiting too much from the government's free child care policy. households with an income of up to £200,000 a year can receive 30 hours a week of state—funded care for three and four—year—olds. mps told the minister the most disadvantaged families were losing out. it was devised as a way of getting people to take more hours,

to go back to work. and the best outcome, one of the most startling statistics i heard, is around 75% of children from workers‘ families moved out of poverty when their parents entered full—time work. it is a great work incentive. the idea that we dismiss it just because of where the threshold price... i completely agree that work is in my view one of the best routes out of poverty and had shooting incredible effect on families. no doubt about that. what i am not sure about is why we are helping families who don't earn up to 200,000 pounds get the hours of childcare. i'm concerned that a single parent in my constituency who may not be able to work because of looking after their child, their child willjust get 15 hours.

how can that be morally right? that is redistribution gone wrong, surely? look, if you go back to the debate, when this was debated in parliament, this whole issue of whether this is a good policy for work incentive or not, was debated thoroughly. from what i have seen, and we are reviewing it, because this is one year in. 3a0,000 children have taken advantage of it. it helps the right parents. you only have two earn £6,a00 as a single parent to be able to take advantage of this. or as a two—parent family, £13,500. it is working. we can always make it better.

the oak ridge, how can this be right? i don't agree with it. we are doing the right thing. we have a really strong strategy here for what i think will deliver the best outcomes for the most disadvantaged children. i'm not objecting to wealthier families and working families getting 30 hours. i'm very happy. i do think the threshold, if you are looking to save money, you could reduce it from £100,000 to £60,000. as a direct consequence of this policy there are fewer vulnerable children getting 30 hours than were previously, and those children are now falling further behind children from better off families who are accessing 30 hours. does that not worry you? of course it worries me if the evidence suggests what you are suggesting. i don't think the evidence is clear. i don't believe the evidence is yet clear. the 15 hours for two—year—olds, if you look at the evidence, is the one that really matters in terms of development. are you looking at the possibility of reducing the threshold from 100,000 to a fairer amount of salary? my interest is to make sure

that we target as well as we can be the help for parents of young children. we are looking at everything. are you reviewing the threshold, yes or no? i'm review everything. nadhim zahawi. finally, the former conservative foreign secretary lord carrington has died at the age of 99. lord carrington famously resigned from margaret thatcher's government when argentine forces invaded the falkland islands in 1982. his long record with conservative governments went all the way back to winston churchill in the 1950s. lord carrington was the longest—serving member of the house of lords. many peers wanted to pay tribute. throughout his life, and i knew him throughout his life, i lunched with him not very long ago. he always was kind to young people, he encouraged them, you never, never felt other than you were

dealing with someone who cared about you. and that was a truly remarkable quality in anyone, but in someone of such quality, it is, i think, almost unique. he was a great leader. he gave credit to others when things went well and he took the blame when things went badly. an old—fashioned set of virtues which perhaps we should occasionally remember. he was a politician and a public servant to his core. he had intellect, integrity, experience and great ability. when he spoke in your lordship‘s house in later years, his wisdom was valued and welcome. i've been told that on one occasion, he interjected on a conversation with margaret thatcher that she was having with a foreign visitor, saying, "the poor chap's come 600 miles, do let him say something!"

laughter. my noble lords will have appreciated his great capacity to advise and persuade. like so many others, i look back to that decision at the start of the falklands conflict in 1982 to resign from the position he held as foreign secretary. i saw this then and still do as a prime example of the very high standards that he set for himself in his public life. it was indeed the first time that his name came to my attention and although that was 36 years ago, i have never forgotten the occasion. during those rather tedious meetings of the council in brussels, he was wont to write limericks about some of those around the table. and when he left the foreign office, we collected them together and gave them, to remind him that there were some useful moment at least spent in brussels. laughter. the last time i remember him very much in the thatcher government, not for long, before he resigned,

we were attending a cabinet committee, attended by the chairman of the coal board, lord marshall. he'd been going on and on and on, and he wrote a limerick, rather like that. he would write limericks, he had a gift for poetic doggerel. the limerick ran, "the noble lord marshall goring is frightfully frightfully boring. and when we come to 20 to one, i think i'll have sounds of snoring". laughter. lord baker. and that's all we've got time for. so from me, mandy baker, goodbye. hello again. yesterday's fresher weather brought an end to a run of remarkable heat, really.

somewhere in the uk over the last six days has seen temperatures into the low 30s, with the exception of yesterday's maximum temperature, which was at chivenor, in devon. we only got up to 26 degrees celsius. it was a beautiful day. for the early rises, outbreaks of rain here. the rain getting increasingly heavy across south—west scotland. the rain will be welcome for gardeners at most of us it is a dry start to the day and a fresh feel. the rain intensifies in south—west scotland, after that, it will fizzle out as the moisture gets spread out and it brings a risk of a few showers to

wales. apart from that, lots of dry weather with clouds coming and going. high teens. and add northern ireland. the warmest weather for england and wales. if you're planning to watch the foot will at some of the open—air venues, it should be a fine evening. it should be pretty comfortable forgetting some sleep. for thursday, a weak weather front, a zone of moisture across the western side of the country, provides a focus for some isolated showers. for most of us a continuation of the dry weather with spells of sunshine around. more sunshine to go around as we head towards the end of the week. sunny skies and lighter winds with temperatures at little bit high as well. pushing into the low 20s here.

isolated showers in western areas. still a few isolated showers around on friday but for most of us it is a dry and to the weak and that the continues through the week. that's your weather. welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is ben bland. our top stories: the 12 boys and their football coach rescued from a cave complex in thailand — are now being treated in hospital. officials say they're in good health — and high spirits. translation: no one thought we could make it, but we did. it was a first for the world. also ahead: president trump arrives in brussels for a key nato summit — and bashes europe again on its record of defence spending. and les bleus are through! france make it to the world cup

final after beating belgium.