the headlines: the us has delayed imposing restrictions on exports to the chinese telecoms company huawei for three months to help existing customers. the commerce department has temporarily restored huawei's ability to maintain its networks and provide software updates. google said it will no longer service the android operating systems in huawei devices. scientists say global sea levels could rise far more than predicted due to accelerating melting in greenland and antarctica. a new study projects that the real level may be around two metres by 2100. the long held view has been that the rise would only be just under one metre. president trump has formally blocked a demand from democrats to hear testimony from the former white house counsel don mcgahn. mr mcgahn had been due to appear before congress about whether mr trump illegally obstructed the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election.

it's 2:30 am. your up—to—date on the headlines. —— you are. now on bbc news: monday in parliament. hello, and welcome to the programme. coming up: the new defence secretary insists the uk doesn't sanction the use of torture in any way. we cannot overrule the law, nor can ministers be advised to overrule the law, or disregard the law. mps ask what more can be done to tackle the spread of ebola and overcome hostility to those trying to help the democratic republic of congo. foreigners have been accused of bringing ebola to drc, and armed groups have stormed health centres and killed staff members. and mps demand the government do more to make medical cannabis available to those who need it.

the product is available in this country perfectly legally — if you can afford it. and that is something that sticks really strongly in my throat. but first: is it possible for minsters to approve the use of information, even if there's a risk of someone being tortured — not by uk agents, but by others? the times newspaper says a freedom of information request has revealed an internal ministry of defence document containing a provision for ministers to give the go—ahead for information to be passed to allies, even if there is a risk of torture, as long as theyjudge that the potential benefits justify it. the new defence secretary was asked to come to the commons to answer an urgent question. the uk government stands firmly against torture and does not participate in, solicit, encourage, or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment for any purpose. our policy and activities in this

area are in accordance with both domestic and international law. the mod's policy is aligned with the government's policy on sharing and receiving intelligence, and the investigatory powers commissioner has been satisfied with our activities and has not identified issues of concern. however, the prime minister has asked the commissioner to review the government's consolidated guidance and submit proposals for how it could be improved. the prohibition of torture is one of our few absolute incontrovertible rights. there can never be a reason orjustification for it. and what's more, it doesn't work — it leads to bad intelligence and bad decisions. but the decision to undertake the iraq war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of the stability of the region and the reputation of the west, was based upon so—called evidence obtained on the basis of torture. he quoted from the mod's policy document. "information shows we should not

proceed unless ministers agree that the potential benefits justify accepting the risk and the legal consequences that may follow." the fundamental problem with paragraph 59 is that it presumes ministers can overrule the law, international law, including that on absolute rights as prohibition of torture. they cannot and must not — i hope my honourable friend will ensure that they do not. laws and norms are there notjust to protect the enemy, but also our own armed forces, too. we cannot overrule the law, nor can ministers be advised to overrule the law, or disregard the law. as i said, we have an opportunity to review this. i want to wait until the advice has been received back from the commissioner, but i understand this will only be a few weeks, and i will update the house as we review our own guidance.

we understand that this policy came into effect in november 2018. could the secretary of state tell the house how many times since then a government minister has decided to authorise the transmission of intelligence which may have led to torture? no minister should be authorising any action, whether there's a serious risk of it leading to torture. will the secretary of state therefore now do the right thing and commit to scrapping this policy immediately, so as to ensure that basic human rights in international law are universally respected and upheld? it is not our policy in any way to condone torture or facilitate it taking place — quite the reverse as i set out earlier — no ministers have been involved in decisions that would've led to that. again, i can check that, but that is the assurances that i have received from the department. with last month having a uk defence secretary sacked

from leaking from the security council, this month we find out that the mod are potentially freelancing in torture and potentially breaking the law. many of us are left asking, "what on earth is going on in her department" ? but the minister had support from the chair of the intelligence and security committee, the isc. can i endorse what my right honourable friend has said? the idea that this is some extraordinary leak displaying some novel policy is wholly and completely erroneous. a lib dem said he'd known people who had been tortured. it strikes me that the uk — we talk about exerting our soft power. if we were up to be seen in the world as the champion of outlawing torture, we could strike a mighty blow for getting rid of this horrible crime. it would do all reputation no harm in the world at all... and, many years ago, we led

the charge against the slave trade. why don't we do the exact same for torture? mps have been debating a petition signed by over 146,000 people calling for former military personnel who served in northern ireland to be protected from criminal charges. last week, the government announced plans to introduce stronger legal protections for ex—servicemen and women, except for those who'd served in northern ireland. that decision has angered many mps, including bob stewart, who served in northern ireland for over three years. we were given this card! this yellow card! which was approved by parliament. and this yellow card told us what we could and what we could not do underfire. he said the decision to open fire was incredibly difficult. that decision is made in milliseconds! and when it'sjudged, when their actions are judged, it's in some courtroom — warm and nice with time and lawyers

actually — and you're judging a decision made by someone who is panicking like hell. a long time ago, my right honourable friend is right — a long time ago. and remember... most of our young men were about 18 or 19 years old. the distinction between an amnesty and a statute of limitations is acute. and there needs to be much more thought given to it, whether the state has discharged its duty, whether it has been a satisfactory investigation, where a veteran has been told, "sir, you have no case to answer, go home". then they should be allowed to get on and live their lives. unlike the scores and scores and scores of terrorists in northern ireland who live with no fear of prosecution. this is the greatest worry, that this willjust never end.

this will never end. not only for this government, the government that replaces it, these veterans — veterans of the falklands, veterans of iraq, veterans of afghanistan — until a government or prime minister decides to showjust a quarter of the courage that we asked our men and women to serve on a daily basis in these conflicts. the legacy investigation branch is currently reviewing all debts related to the security situation in northern ireland between 1968 and the belfast agreement in 1998. however, it is not only deaths attributed to security personnel that are being investigated. we need to be careful when we have talk of soldiers being prosecuted or easy targets for prosecution, and terrorists getting away scot—free — that is simply not true.

if there's one thing that everybody in the hall here today agrees on is that this matter has been dealt with without sensitivity, without subtlety, and without good sense. the idea of a cavalcade of police rocking out that somebody's house at 5—6am is indefensible. we cannot go there. so what i would say is that we need to be much, much more sensitive. and if we cannot turn the clock back and we cannot investigate these cases then, and we are going to investigate them now, we need to be sensible and, above all, to remember those two groups — the veterans, by all means, but also we must never ever forget the victims. nobody here is trying to pretend, and i don't think i've heard a single person say, that those who've breached the law shouldn't be treated with the utmost care, gravity, and severity. but nor should we pretend that they were common or ubiquitous, or frequent either. and it is essential when we try to maintain a sense of proportion

and balance here, which many people have rightly pointed out has not been widely achieved, that we don't forget that central fact. the government is to provide new funding and expert help to the democratic republic of congo, amid fears the rapidly—escalating ebola crisis there could spread into neighbouring countries. the virus, which originated in west africa, is marked by fever and severe internal bleeding. it's spread through contact with infected body fluids. the last major outbreak, five years ago, killed more than 11,000 people in guinea, liberia, and sierra leone. ebola is back. this time, in the eastern drc. this is the largest outbreak in the country's history. it's the second largest outbreak in the world. and the first in a conflict zone. so far, 1,209 people have died, and we must do much more

to grip this situation. this is north kivu, the centre of a conflict dominated by dozens of separate armed groups largely outside government control. such groups have begun to attack and kill health workers, meaning that key international experts have had to be withdrawn from the epicentre of the virus. and the decision not to allow this province to participate in the recent elections, partly on the grounds that this is an ebola area, has fuelled suspicion that ebola is a fabrication developed by hostile political forces. now to be clear, the current disease profile poses, according to all our expert analysis here, at the moment only a low—to—negligible risk to the united kingdom. so this statement should not be a cause for panic at home. but this outbreak is potentially devastating for the region.

it could spread easily to neighbouring provinces, and even to neighbouring countries. one of the major barriers to delivering the necessary response is the breakdown of trust between the affected community and those trying to lead the response. a quarter of people in the region believe the ebola virus doesn't exist, and a third think it was fabricated for financial gain. foreigners have been accused of bringing ebola to drc, and armed groups have stormed health centres and killed staff members. during the west african epidemic of 2014—16, funerals were a major source of ebola transmission, causing almost 80% of the infections in sierra leone. what steps are the department taking to ensure that the safe and speedy burials are given to those affected across the worst affected areas?

people want to be able to see their loved ones, they want to be able to bury them. but we have to then bring the family members into a hazmat suit. we have to make sure they see the chlorine spraying of the body. and in certain cases, in addition to the wrapping the body, we need a clear sight so people can actually see the face, so that some of these rumours that have been going around about organ harvesting can be dealt with directly. and in eastern drc, this is notjust about reassuring the family itself, but about reassuring the broader community. can i welcome the secretary of state to his new role? he is perhaps that rare animal — a minister that is respected on both sides of the house. so i wish him well. he will know that in 2014, the ebola outbreak was classified a public health emergency of international concern, as was the outbreak of zika in 2016. i assume the secretary of state is monitoring that. at what point does he believe we might reach that point, and what additional resources would that bring to tackling this outbreak?

we don't believe the declaration would make a dramatic difference to the resources we're currently able to deploy. in fact, we've recently signed off on a very significant additional resources, which we can't talk about yet for security reasons, but we are putting many more resources into this operation. rory stewart. you're watching monday in parliament, with me, alicia mccarthy. don't forget, you can find our round up of the last few days at westminster by searching for the week in parliament on the bbc iplayer. a leading campaigner for the prescription of medicinal cannabis says the drug is available to people who can afford to pay for it. sir mike penning has highlighted cases of children who it's thought could benefit from using the drug to reduce epileptic seizures. the law was changed last year to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis—derived medicines in limited situations. but in a backbench debate,

sir mike was highly critical of the delays in providing the medicines. there is a blockage in the health, the nhs. let's talk about the nhs. there is a blockage if you can't pay for this prescription. if you can pay for the prescription in the private... there are consultants working inside the nhs and outside in the private sector. but private prescriptions are being honoured. the product is available in this country — perfectly legally. if you can afford it. and that is something that sticks really strongly in my throat. he reminded mps why the law had changed. the families came together. families of young children, and i'm a father myself like lots of colleagues in this house, and said, "this is fundamentally wrong. why is it illegal? it helps my child.

and we know it helps my child". so, that's why we're here today — i'll give way to my honourable friend. am i right therefore in my assessment that ministers have bent over backwards? we have acted in this chamber to ensure that these products are now available. and the problem is in the medical profession. and now, what more can we do? i know it's interfering in the medical profession, but frankly that's now becoming necessary! i thank my honourable friend and he's absolutely right. the secretary of state stood at that despatch box following the urgent question and laid out in plain english that it is not illegal for a suitably qualified person to prescribe these medical products. so, how are we still here? there are multiple examples of patients who want to access medical cannabis including those who are doctors who want to access it but are not able. these are patients who were given hope last year of an end to their pain or an end to their anxiety or their seizures, only to have it dashed and frustrated.

an snp mp explained it wasn'tjust the families of young children who wanted access to the drug. i had a visit to my constituency surgery from one of our veterans who had incurred an injury during his service who was in chronic pain and felt that cannabis alleviated that but really didn't wish to buy in the street, wished it to be prescribed and wished for the minister to look at research and studies to ensure where veterans do need that assistance, they can have it. what is needed to support such prescription is evidence of efficacy and for public funding cost efficacy. this system is applied for all medicines and medical devices in the uk. cannabis should not be treated any differently. the current evidence base has been summarised by the professional bodies in their interim clinical guidance and will be further examined and reported on by nice shortly. david lidington mp, who is in effect theresa may's deputy,

has said the prime minister's "bold offer" to mps ahead of the vote on the withdrawal agreement bill will be "to parliamentarians of every political party". the bill is due before the commons at the beginning ofjune. mr lidington was speaking to the public administration and constitutional affairs committee. the direct talks between the government and her majesty's official opposition have ended. they were of course extremely unpopular with many of our conservative colleagues. but nevertheless, the government is going to introduce the withdrawal agreement bill which apparently, according to the prime minister, will constitute a "bold new offer", is what she called it. to whom is this offer intended unless it is intended to tempt labour mps to support the bill? to parliamentarians of every political party because i think that there is a responsibility on mp5 regardless of their political party to try to agree a process that

leads to an outcome which both delivers the referendum result of 2016 but does so in an orderly fashion that allows for our departure in a way that best protectsjobs, investment, and living standards in this country and the union of the united kingdom. in the absence of sufficient conservatives mps supporting the bill at second reading, how much are you hoping that the negotiations and this bold new offer will sway sufficient labour mps either to vote for the bill or at least it to abstain in order to let the government obtain a second reading? i will be hoping, chairman, for the widest possible support from mp5 of all political parties. david lidington. now, the government has promised to reflect on whether or not legislation is needed to protect victims of fraud if banks don't abide by a new voluntary code. the code of practise, which comes in next week, covers cases of "authorised" payment fraud, where a scammer submits

a fake invoice containing the fraudster‘s bank details. it's often difficult to spot that they are not the legitimate payee. under the new rules, customers are much more likely to be reimbursed provided they have taken appropriate steps to make sure the person they paid was not fraudulent. in the lords, labour said the problem was acute. i accept the fact that the government has made some progress, and the banks, with regard to the voluntary code but will the minister give the undertaking that if in fact that does not provide satisfactory protection for our people that in fact the government will legislate in order to ensure that victims get repaid? it's exactly because the government was not satisfied with the progress being made that the former home secretary asked hmrc to inspect

the police response to fraud. they responded on 2 april with 16 recommendations and the government, together with the banks and the police, are in the process of implementing those. this morning, i had a phone call from barclays completely unannounced asking me questions in relation to details of my account. was it not possible where banks know that they are going to contact customers in relation to the contents of their accounts they should send them an e—mail or a letter before hand rather than calling on an ad—hoc basis? my own response if i got a telephone call from the bank would be to hang and then ring back the bank. there is an additional measure being introduced later this year for larger payments and payments where the banks think there is a risk in that they will have what they call multi—factor authentication which means

that they would, in this case, text message my noble friend saying that a payment was going through and ask him to confirm if that was the case. anyone going into a bank to move money by wire transfer, which is what i do for safety's sake, is asked a series of questions about the payee and other steps that the bank takes because they know that responsibility will fall upon them and that is required by law. should not the same strength put behind online banking? i think we should welcome the step forward that i have announced and have been three initiatives being taken by the banks, confirmation of payee, the interception or interrogation of large sums, and whatever the third one was — the voluntary code. i'd like to reflect from what the noble lady has said and see whether there is a case for legislation. but i think we are making good progress with the steps i announced. my lords, are were not getting this the wrong way around? all frauds, or most frauds, have one thing in common which is the money is received

and processed by another bank account usually in the uk. should we not be making the receiving bank, the bank that has handled and processed the stolen money, automatically liable for the loss? if we did that, they would have a real incentive to stop accounts being used by fraudsters. we do it for credit cards. well, again, i think that's a very helpful suggestion. it seems to me, and this is not my special subject, that it is too easy in some cases to open a bank account. and that bank account is then emptied instantly by whoever has done the fraud and then there is no one left to seek compensation against. and i like my noble lord's suggestion that the banks where they have not undertaken due diligence to establish the real identity of the person opening the account, they should be held liable. lord young. a call from the leader of change uk, heidi allen, for an emergency debate on revoking article 50 has been rejected by the speaker. heidi allen. here, here. ms allen told mps she believed

the risk of the uk leaving the eu without a deal had increased. the speaker, john bercow, who doesn't have to give reasons for his decision, pointed out that one of the factors he had to consider was whether an issue was likely to come before the house by other means. finally, the house of lords is well known for the wide range of professions and interests represented among its membership. a conservative lord dobbs, as michael dobbs wrote the bestselling political thriller house of cards, which inspired the tv series of the same name. he got to his feet to demand an inquiry into the eu referendum and complained that our constitution was becoming something of a parliamentary pantomime. they are making it up as they go along. downing street, the house of commons, the cabinet, even the speaker — no one knows any longer what to expect. and as for that solemn and binding promise to the voters before

the last referendum that they would decide, it's quite clear that not only is our constitution unwritten, but it's also unravelling. as i listen to my noble friend and warm to his theme about trust, i ask myself whether his infamous depiction in the house of cards of the government chief whip, a position i was privileged to hold... laughter. ..as a duplicitous homicidal adulterer. .. laughter. ..had actually enhanced trust in our profession. laughter. well, he may very well think that, but i couldn't possibly comment. and that's it from me for now. don't forget, you can follow me on twitter @bbcalicia. and david cornock will be with you for the rest of the week. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

hello there. we've had some interesting clouds sent in to us here at the bbc weather centre over recent days. this was monday's effort from cardiff. it's a funnel cloud, a tornado that doesn't quite reach its way all the way down to the ground. and what about this beauty from sunday, from the north yorkshire area. but what if the atmosphere had 25 times more energy built up in it, ready to be released in one violent outbreak? well, that's what we've got going on across parts of the united states at the moment, through texas and oklahoma. these storm clouds have already produced some tornadoes, and there is the potential for some of these tornadoes to become violent, wide, and have a long track along the ground. so some extreme weather across the united states. here in the uk, though, over the next few hours, expect a little bit more rain to come in. scotland, some damp weather here. otherwise, it's a largely dry picture. but again, it's quite murky around some of our eastern coasts, with some mist and fog patches particularly again for eastern areas of scotland.

so for tuesday morning, for many of us, a decent start to the day. the winds should be light and there should be plenty of sunshine around across northern ireland, for most of england and wales. and increasingly, we'll see the skies brighten up in scotland as well. but, as that process happens, the rain eases, we'll start to see some showers breaking out, and they could turn heavy and thundery. maybe a few showers as well getting going across eastern england. otherwise it's dry and in any sunshine, it should feel pleasantly warm, given the light winds. it's a similar day for many of us on wednesday. again, a lot of drier weather around, with some sunshine, but there will be some thicker cloud working into northern scotland, particularly the northern isles, with some rain and cool weather. temperaturesjust ten in lerwick. we might see some of that rain getting into aberdeenshire as well. but elsewhere, a similar kind of weather prospect. a few isolated showers, but it's mainly dry with some sunshine. so, the next few days, feeling warm in any sunshine. a few slow—moving showers are possible and the winds are going to stay light. but subtle signs of something of a change as we head towards thursday. we've got a weather system

lurking in the atlantic, and there is a chance that we could see some of the rain brushing into western areas. a little bit of uncertainty about that, but for many of us, i think there'll be a little bit more in the way of high cloud in the sky, making any sunshine hazy. quite warm again, though — temperatures high—teens to low 20s fairly widely. now, on into friday and the weekend, it looks like the jetstream is going to start moving straight across the uk, and that will tend to encourage outbreaks of rain, particularly across northern areas. so we could see some rain at times. some uncertainty in the details of the rain. it will probably turn cloudier and breezier, though, through the weekend. that's your weather.

welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: the us delays restrictions on huawei as the chinese tech company claims google's actions against it are based on politics and not security. they're citing this as being a security issue and it absolutely is not a security issue. this is all tied to the china—us trade negotiations. scientists warn sea levels could rise twice the level predicted, because of accelerated melting in greenland and antarctica. president trump tells his former legal adviser — don mcgahn — not to appear before congress to testify about the mueller report. ministers of the far—right freedom party resign from austria's