tankers off its coast in the gulf of oman — one of the world's busiest oil export routes. tensions are already high in the region, and the incident has pushed up oil prices. tehran has denied any involvement. they have accused the us of trying to sabotage international diplomacy. president trump's white house spokesperson, sarah huckabee sanders will leave herjob at the end of this month. the president said he thought that ms sanders had done an incrediblejob. she once said that god wanted donald trump to become president. sudan's military rulers have tonight admitted that they did give the orders for an operation that led to the killing of more than 100 peaceful protestors ten days ago. the un security council has condemned the massacre and called for an end to attacks on civilians. now on bbc news,

thursday in parliament. hello there and welcome to thursday in parliament, where as the conservative leadership candidates start to be whittled down, mps want to know that parliament won't be suspended to push through a no—deal brexit. and who can believe that taking back control would be suspending our democracy. but one peer reckons there's nothing to fearfrom no—deal. planes will fly, wings of the exported and these free ——visa—free travel will continue. and concerns about the situation in hong kong as well as condemnation of

the latest violence in sudan. i think we have all been clear internationally of the completely unacceptable behaviour of the rapid support forces and the absolutely terrible atrocities. but first, three candidates for the conservative leadership have been knocked out of the contest. at the start of the day, there were ten names on the ballot paper given to mps and a two—hour voting period for them to make their choice. and atjust after 1pm, it was announced that borisjohnson had secured the most votes, followed byjeremy hunt and michael gove. matt hancock, sajid javid, dominic raab and rory stewart also made the cut. which means mark harper, andrea leadsom and esther mcvey didn't get enough votes to go through to the next round. well, just ahead of those results coming through, opposition mps took up some of the comments from the candidates, including one dominic raab, who's said he'd prorogue or suspend paliament to get no—deal through. the sovereign acts on the advice of her ministers.

we know breaching conventions is not illegal, it's a convention, but the courts can look at it which is why it is so outrageous morally and constitutionally when candidates in the tory leadership election are suggesting they will put our gracious sovereign in a position to prorogue parliament. can he rule that out today? three candidates have said the uk will leave without a deal with the parliament has expressly said and voted against it. can he rule that out today? the minister said prorogation in the event of no—deal was not the government's policy. it is certainly the feeling on this side of the house that her majesty the queen should be kept out of politics. it would be unfair to draw her into a political situation in that form. the honourable lady made several references to no deal and the various positions of the conservative candidates. the runners and riders in the forthcoming contest,

i don't think we'll be right for me to specifically comment on those but i think what does unite the whole house is that a deal is better than having no deal provided we can come together to secure that outcome. will he at the very least endorse the words of the leadership contender he is supporting? this afternoon, who said proroging parliament in order to try and get no deal through would be wrong for many reasons. i have made it very clear that the view of this side of the house in the government is as would not be used as a device to ensure that parliament is absent from the decisions which may be have to be made towards the end of october and for that it would not be appropriate for her majesty the queen to be drawn into those kind of political decisions. i was listening carefully to the response for the right gentlemen, but i'm still hearing

they are prepared to suspend our democracy and parliament to get this disastrous no deal through. that's the agenda of so many members who are standing for the post of prime minister. and we have to be quite clearly and definitively from the leader of the house he is not prepared to have our democracy suspended. and who can believe that taking back control would mean suspending our democracy and suspending this house? when they ranted and raved about mythical and democratic brussels bureaucrats denying democracy, we know who the true democracy deniers are. the honourable gentlemen, as we all know is one of the most talented musicians in the house having been in a very fine band or two. having even appeared on top of the pops. nonetheless it is simply not good enough to come to this chamber week after week and play the same old tunes. in particular, the fact that they are all out as far as i can tell, out

of the abba playbook. whenever he is pressing a minister it's always money, money, money. when he pressing others it's always take a chance on me. and once again he took the opportunity to raise his push for a second referendum, but can i just say that if he continues to do that he will not be long before we hear his version of waterloo. that's about as good as it gets, madam deputy speaker. the minister said prorogation in the event of no—deal was not the government's policy. down the corridor in lords, a conservative former cabinet minister said a series of mini deals with the eu has vastly reduced the likelihood of congestion and delays at ports in the event of a no—deal brexit. peter, now lord lilley, was asking about the arrangements that had been made for transport, travel and safety. but the minister said britain couldn't expect trade to continue with the eu precisely as it does now in the event of a no—deal brexit. the eu has adopted time—limited

regulations covering the aviation market access and safety certificates as well as road haulage and international rail. they've also announced visa free travel for uk nationals travelling to the uk for short stays after exit. the government has given reciprocal assurances in each of these four areas which will provide certainty to businesses and citizens should the uk leave the eu without a deal. is it not reassuring that these mini deals and others mean that planes will fly, hauliers will operate airbus wings will be exported and visa free travel will continue? will my friend also confirm that hmrc plan no extra checks at dover and will prioritise flow over compliance while france is so determined not to lose trade to belgium and dutch ports that they have installed multiple extra lorry lanes and located

inspection points away from the ports and installed the equipment to scan moving trains and so the likelihood of congestion and delays has vastly diminished to the obvious disappointment of the liberal democrats. the noble lord is right in that the mini deals do make any potential exit without a deal less difficult but they are time—limited and there need to be further negotiations when they expire. what would be the consequences of the road haulage traffic between the uk and eu under no deal beyond the arrangements not agreed because we have for example, declined to pay the £39 billion currently provided for on our departure with the eu? the noble lord is quite right that there are multiple mini deals

and they do expire at different times and we will be looking to the eu to extend them, and it is within their gift to decide whether or not to extend them as it is within ours to whether or not to reciprocate. the commission said they would only provide for basic connectivity and mitigate to some extent the impact of withdrawal without however guaranteeing the continuation of all existing air transport services under the same terms as they are supplied today. and is it not an outrage that some candidates to be our prime minister will be receiving votes today by conservative mps who would propose to enforce this by suspending parliament? if parliament does not agree to some of these measures are not the best interest of our transport sectors? it is substantially as it is now, but the noble lord is quite right that were these to fall away as they do for various forms of transport, it will be necessary to look very hard at what you do thereafter.

does the minister recall the government's written answer to me saying that if we end up trading on normal wto terms eu exporters will pay us some £14 billion per annum while ours will pay brussels only some £6 billion per annum. might some of the £8 billion profit not be useful in subsidizing any unforeseen costs without a deal with billions to spare for other national priorities? unfortunately, i don't recall the response to the noble lord on the 6th of february, and certainly discussions of tariffs, are slightly beyond the original scope of the question set out today. but we do expect the most favoured nation tariff regime will apply to the uk if in the event of the uk leaving without a deal

and the lords will also be very much aware that this will result in the introduction of tariffs to 60% of the uk experts the eu. the noble lord said that the intention was to prioritise flow over compliance. and i refer to my interest in the register on these matters. does that really mean that the government is prepared to tolerate unsafe goods, goods which violate intellectual property laws and everything else coming into this country simply to facilitate the mantra of no deal? certainly the government will not be tolerating that, and that is why we have designed customs and additional control arrangement to make sure that appropriate checks are made. well, preparations for a no—deal brexit were preoccupying mps in the commons too. at transport questions, an snp mp said the government's record to date had been shambolic.

in may, the department for transport cancelled contracts to provide extra ferry services after brexit — at a cost to the taxpayer of tens of millions of pounds. in february, it axed a £118 million contract with a third company, seaborne freight, which had no vessels. the government then faced legal action from eurotunnel and p&0 ferries, over the handling of the contracts. so far, the secretary of state's reckless actions on ferry contracts alone have cost 43.8 million termination pay—outs to brittany ferries and dfds, 800,000 on consultancy fees, £33 million to eurotunnel, with p&0 also expecting 33 million plus legal fees to be added to the final bill. so it will be over £110 million. what's being sacrificed to pay for this? and when will the secretary of state apologise? no—deal preparation carried out by this department for freight

capacity was just 1% of the overall budget for no—deal planning — 1%. we have heard no apology today and the secretary sits there, lets his minister come to the despatch box while he shakes his head. the reality is, the next no—deal deadline is october. we're not getting the next prime minister in place untiljuly. there's a summer recess. so it's almost impossible to make proper preparations for a no—deal brexit in october. yet the transport secretary is supporting a no—deal candidate for the leadership of the tory party. can the minister actually detail any work that's ongoing just now, or is this department so reckless, they don't care, there will be further chaos and £110 million down the drain? i don't know what to say. he is disappointed that the secretary isn't at the despatch box, but it is my portfolio, and i am pleased to be responding to his question. if the honourable member was close to the maritime sector, he would be aware that we have working with them for the last two years. and just this week, we had

the interministerial groups with the port sector. i was in front of the appg for ports and maritime. there is extensive dialogue. there is constant research done to see what we need to do to continue to prepare. and if it arises again, come 0ctober, we'll put preparations in place. we could be just four months away from a disastrous no—deal brexit, and the government has put on hold its contingency plans. its previous efforts resulted in 89 lorries and a refuge truck pretending to be on convoy to dover, where, in reality, it takes 10,000 heavy goods vehicles a day. it doled out to ferry contracts to ferry companies that didn't have any actual ferries, or the means to get them, with the terms and conditions cut and pasted from a fast food takeaway, and he threw 33 million quid away

in an out—of—court settlement, with, potentially, many more litigations coming down the track. could the minister please give us a clue as to the secretary of state's next great plans? our plans amounted to just 1% of no—deal planning, and it's the right thing to do for government to prepare for all eventualities. and we were responsible in putting together freight capacity, which was needed for critical supplies, including for the national health service. if the honourable gentlemen is so nervous about no—deal, he should support a deal. you're watching thursday in parliament with me, alicia mccarthy. don't forget — you can find any of our programmes by going to the bbc iplayer and searching for parliament, and you can follow me on twitter @bbcalicia. mps from all parties are continuing to voice their concerns over

the political situation in hong kong, following the worst rioting in decades earlier this week. the protesters are angry about plans to allow extradition to mainland china. despite the widespread opposition, the government has not backed down. here, the minister turned to comments made by chinese officials about the joint declaration between the uk and china signed in 1984 that paved the way for the handover of hong kong. i note that the chinese ambassador to london commented on bbc‘s newsnight programme last night that the joint declaration is, as he put it, "an historic document that has completed its mission". once again, i strongly disagree. the joint declaration remains as valid today as it did when it was signed over 35 years ago. thatjoint declaration is a legally binding international treaty, registered with the united nations. its objectives clearly apply to both of its signatories — the government of the people's republic of china and the uk.

it remains in force and it remains acutely relevant to the conduct of day—to—day life in hong kong. we expect china to abide by its obligations. but labour said this wasn't the first occasion that china had sought to undermine human rights in hong kong. it had, they said, been a steady erosion over a number of years. so the big question today, madam deputy speaker, is, what is the uk government prepared to do to demand that the chinese authorities go back to the commitments that they made in the 1984 statement, which, as the minister of state has said, the chinese ambassador was saying last night is a historic document? but, you know, they have been saying it for two years. two years ago, they said it was a historical document which has no practical significance and is not binding. and i agree with the minister of state when he condemns those comments, but we have to ask — is it no wonder that the chinese are so dismissive of the joint

agreement and prepared to commit flagrant breaches of it if we, as a country, are not prepared to protest when they do so? and let me make it clear. i don't mean this as a personal criticism of the minister of state, but as a general indictment of the government's approach over recent years, which has not been as clear and robust as just set out by the minister of state. and it is notjust me making that indictment. last year, it was chris patten — the former member for bath, the last british governor of hong kong — who described the government's stance towards china as "craven". a number of mps expressed concern about the estimated 300,000 british citizens in hong kong. one had a personal story to tell. yesterday, i had a young hong kong woman come to my office and show me pictures of what had happened to friends of hers who had been protesting in hong kong. she showed me the videos of tear gas

being used and she showed me the injuries that they had sustained as a result of rubber bullets being used. these things happen because the authorities that employ these methods think that they can do it and get off with it, and she understood — as i think we should all understand — that the joint declaration is under attack now, notjust from the people's republic of china but also by carrie lam's administration in hong kong itself. and the question, as the honourable member from southend said, is what signals do we send? and i have to say to the minister that the signal that he sends today, in saying that the united kingdom government does not see the extradition changes as a breach of the joint declaration, is fundamentally wrong and has to change.

well, mark field said that was unfair, and the government had simply observed that the proposed new law doesn't automatically breach the letter of the 1984joint declaration. but he said the spirit of that treaty was also important. now, labour has claimed that ministers are forcing poor people to choose between paying rent and feeding their families. on wednesday, the supreme court ruled in favour of a single mother who was forced out of her home because of a shortfall in her housing benefit. birmingham city council refused to provide her with extra funding and told her to use non—housing benefit to plug the gap. labour blamed the government for freezing the local housing allowance, which is used to work out how much housing benefit a claimant gets when renting from a private landlord, while private rents were going up. research by shelter has found that for a two—bedroom home, even for the cheapest third of rents, lha rates do not cover rental costs in 97% of areas in england. in the case the supreme court ruled

on yesterday, miss samuels was expected to use her social security to find an additional £150 per month to top up her lha to cover her rent. this put miss samuels in an impossible situation, essentially forcing her to choose between housing herself and feeding her family. the minister explained why the local housing allowance had been frozen. this was about getting our welfare bill under control. it was about ensuring that we provided the support necessary for those who needed it, fairness for those who pay for it and making sure that our welfare system is sustainable in the long term. now, what i can commit to the honourable lady is that the freeze does end in march 2020. but in all cases, we have the targeted affordability funding available. we also have discretionary housing payments. £1 billion has been made available since 2011. but, ultimately, this is also a supply issue.

lha rates is one thing, supply is another. we do need to look at successive governments that, frankly, have not built enough affordable — and by that, i mean council and social — housing. the snp said local authorities were in a very difficult position. there has been a perfect storm that has led so many of us having cases like miss samuels at our surgeries. punitive, arbitrary and punishing cuts to social security, including housing benefit, coupled with rent increases and a devastating undersupply in social housing. when will they wake up to the crisis that they are causing? does the minister not understand that the government's commitment to eradicate homelessness will continue to ring very hollow while his department continues to pursue many of the very policies that have created that problem in the first place? we need the welfare system repaired, and we need some action to tackle cases like this, record numbers of people using food

banks and a welfare system that isn't doing what the minister states its aim is. i'm afraid ijust don't recognise the picture that the honourable lady paints. we are spending record amounts on our welfare system, over £95 billion a year for those in working age. will quince. a foreign office minister has warned that sanctions could be imposed on those who don't play a "constructive role" in sudan moving from military to civilian rule. the army has been in control since long—time president 0mar al—bashir was ousted in april. pro—democracy protesters are demanding a return to civilian government. talks broke down after dozens of protesters were killed in a crackdown on a sit—in on june 3. doctors say 118 people have died in the recent outbreak of violence, but officials put the number at around 60. i think we've all been clear internationally of the completely

un—acceptable behaviour of the rapid support forces and the absolutely terrible atrocities, and we deplore those, and we will be making sure that, as the international community, we are able to both set out the potential rewards of moving to civilian rule but also that people understand the potential tools that we have to sanction those who are not playing a constructive role in the transition. the african union rightly suspended sudan from its membership until a civilian—led transitional authority is established. but we now need to see further pressure placed on the transitional military council to continue the political transition. and to this end, the government should encourage our allies in riyadh and abu dhabi to persuade sudanese paramilitary forces to pull out of khartoum and

resume negotiations with protesters. in the last ten days, at least 124 people have been killed by the regime forces and more than 700 have been injured as protests have steadily engulfed khartoum. we've also had widespread reports of sexual violence, mass arrests, gunfire in medical facilities and bodies floating in the river nile. the snp follows the eu in calling for the sudanese government to release alljournalists, members of the opposition, human rights defenders and other protesters arbitrarily detained, and to conduct a thorough investigation into recent deaths and human rights abuses. the critical point that britain can make at this time is that there will be no impunity for the human rights abusers in the regime in sudan who are conducting most appalling events in sudan, in khartoum and elsewhere, in respect of civil society, which is trying to move sudan to a better place. and it's notjust the appalling

events that have taken place through the militias in darfur, where president george bush referred to events there as "a genocide" and where general bashir must be held to account by the international criminal court. it is also the human rights abusers, and the forces in khartoum can be held to account today through mobile phone technology. there are many pictures of individual people who have been abusing the human rights of citizens in khartoum. and britain should make the point that they will all be held to account, no matter how long it takes, in due course. and that's it from me for now, but dojoin me on bbc parliament on friday night at 11pm for the week in parliament, our look back at the last few days here at westminster. i'll be rounding up the week and talking to two experts about whether it's possible to prorogue parliament to deliver a no—deal brexit. but for now from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye.

hello. as the flooding and disruption continues, particularly across parts of england, some spots have had three months‘ worth ofjune rainfall and just a week, over 150 millimetres in the wettest places. still rain in the forecast but not necessarily the same areas, as low pressure adopts a new position to the north—west of the uk in the coming days, means showers are most frequent in the north and the west. and there is, as friday starts, a fresh area of rain affecting parts of england and wales, also rain in north—west scotland. fairly chilly for the clearer parts of scotland and northern ireland as the day begins. but where you start the day with rain, things should improve as we go through the day, it should brighten up and it will be an afternoon of sunshine and showers. here's a look at things at 8:00 in the morning. so you're in the rain in north—west scotland, especially into the western isles, one or two showers elsewhere, but where you have got the clear skies and here into northern ireland, too, your temperature could be around the mid single figures

as the day first starts. but you can see the outbreaks of rain from northern england, the midlands into wales, perhaps affecting parts of south—west england, perhaps the odd showery burst towards the south—east. but the further south—east you are, may well be seeing some sunshine as the day begins. so on through the day then, you can pick out the two areas of rainfall but they are slowly easing and things start to brighten up. more widely so by the afternoon, it is sunshine, showers, may be heavy and thundery, very few for east anglia and south—east england, perhaps up to 20 celsius here. for most of us here it will feel a bit warmer, especially where you've had days stuck in the rain. going through friday evening, we'll see another area of rain, this time pushing into northern ireland, and then feeding on towards south—west scotland, wales and western england as saturday starts. ahead of that, it will be mainly clear bar the odd shower. that takes us on to the weekend, the big picture has low pressure here to the north—west of us, it will be feeding in weather disturbances from the west this time, and this is the first one we are contending with on saturday morning. so it will be an area of cloud, some showery rain out of that, slowly moving further

east as the day goes on. ahead of it, sunny spells, maybe a shower. behind it, sunny spells and the chance of catching a shower. on a fairly breezy day with temperatures topping out in the mid to high teens. now, part two of the weekend on sunday, if anything, it looks a little bit breezier, and it will be another day of sunshine and showers. now the showers most frequent in the north and west where again it could be heavy and possibly thundery, some though, will push a little bit further east on the breeze during the day. showers — not everybody will catch one. and again, temperatures mostly in the mid—to high teens. that's your latest forecast. i'll see you soon.

welcome to bbc news — i'm mike embley. our top stories. rising tensions in the middle east — iran denies claims by washington that it carried out attacks on two oil tankers in the gulf. it is the assessment of the united states government that the islamic republic of iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the gulf of oman today. after a controversial and difficult two years, sarah sanders confirms she's quitting the white house in a few weeks. a special report from sudan — as military rulers admit their orders led to the deaths of more than 100 protestors. and some of the oldest trees in the world are dying.