here in the uk, the prime minister says the first asylum flights to provide a believe in 10—12 weeks, come what may. at first yet to secure the legislation. we are in the final stages of that process tonight. we will take your life to westminster. donald trump is in court in new york. the first ever criminal trial of a former us president. we will get reaction to the cases set up today by the prosecution. huw edwards bows out, he is leaving the bbc on medical advice nine months after he was suspended. and the latest on unrwa, the un has tonight published its long—awaited investigation into the palestinian aid agency that was accused by israel of having links to hamas. good evening. it will bejuly before a plane takes migrants to rwanda. the prime minister, rishi sunak,

set out his timetable this morning, admitting it will take longer than he would like. the rwanda bill, which is likely to become law tonight, is designed to curb any legal challenge to the process. but the peers are not giving up without a fight. these are the live pictures of the lords, where they are settling in for another round of this parliamentary ping—pong. there were two amendments the commons stripped out this the commons stripped out this afternoon — one to protect afghan veterans who served with british forces. the government insists there is a legal roots already exist. the second amendment would stop migrants from being deported until practical protections are in place to guarantee rwanda as a safe country. here is the prime minister. it is clear that there is a loud minority of people who will do absolutely anything and everything to disrupt this policy from succeeding. you only have to look at what has been going on in parliament over the past few weeks and months, with the labour party at every turn locking progress on this bill. you

saw that last week. you will see it again today. 50 saw that last week. you will see it again today-— again today. so how many people miaht be again today. so how many people might be affected _ again today. so how many people might be affected by _ again today. so how many people might be affected by this? - again today. so how many people might be affected by this? well, | again today. so how many people| might be affected by this? well, it is important to remember that under the illegal migration act became law last year all people arriving in the uk by irregular roots must be removed. the home secretary is now under a legal duty to remove them to a third country. but there is not a third country to send them to, at least not yet, so all those arriving since july least not yet, so all those arriving sincejuly has been sitting in limbo. no cases have been processed, the backlog is nearly 52,000 people with more small boats arriving. legally, the earliest anyone can be put onto a flight is 12 days after this bill is given royal assent. but according to rishi sunak, it will not start happening that quickly because they are expecting some legal challenges. the first flight will leave in 10—12 weeks. now, of course that is later than we wanted, but we have always been clear that processing will take time. so what sort of legal challenge,

then,is so what sort of legal challenge, then, is still open? the government has advised that some asylum seekers could lodge a repeal against removal claiming their personal circumstances makes them a special case. the bill creates a high bar for that kind of appeal. the home office is now setting up offices to deal quickly with that. it is not such cases will be dealt with within a couple of months. the courts have now been given extra resources to cope. asylum seekers refused a right to appeal would still seek a... of the new laws shuts off most routes by which legal challenges can be brought. 0nce by which legal challenges can be brought. once again today, the prime minister did not rule out leaving the european court of human rights if things don't go according to plan. so let's go to the lobby. 0ur political correspondent is watching events for us tonight. i know you have a guest with you, peter. bring us up to speed where you are. the parliamentary _ us up to speed where you are. tue: parliamentary ping—pong us up to speed where you are. tte: parliamentary ping—pong continues,

it is currently in the house of lords court. they are debating to fresh amendments, slightly tweaked amendments to the ones that were rejected a couple of hours ago by the house of commons. there is perhaps a little bit of a sign of movement this evening, the government spokesperson suggesting that the afghan scheme, resettlement scheme might be reviewed so that some people who have already arrived in the uk and had had their claim rejected, regardless of how they have arrived, could potentially stay in the uk. that amendment put forward by former labour defence secretary des browne. he is saying that he might now not to push that amendment to a vote. we will have to wait and see. the boats due to get under way in the next few minutes or so. earlier on, there was a small conservative rebellion in the house of commons, and one of the democrat the former cabinet minister sir robert buckland. why did you vote against the government this evening?

i have consistently said in previous iterations — i have consistently said in previous iterations of this ping—pong that i felt that— iterations of this ping—pong that i felt that there needs to be a specific— felt that there needs to be a specific to deal with there is very brave _ specific to deal with there is very brave people who served not just our country _ brave people who served not just our country but _ brave people who served not just our country but the interest of freedom in afghanistan, many of whom are waiting _ in afghanistan, many of whom are waiting for— in afghanistan, many of whom are waiting for their position to be sorted — waiting for their position to be sorted out, they are in pakistan, they— sorted out, they are in pakistan, they are — sorted out, they are in pakistan, they are not in positions of safety. i they are not in positions of safety. iwouidn't — they are not in positions of safety. i wouldn't want to see, and i don't iwouldn't want to see, and i don't think— i wouldn't want to see, and i don't think anybody wants to see them, being _ think anybody wants to see them, being caught up in this particular scheme, — being caught up in this particular scheme, which was designed for a very different purpose. i am encouraged to hear those noises from the lords _ encouraged to hear those noises from the lords. let's see what happens. i do feel_ the lords. let's see what happens. i do feel now— the lords. let's see what happens. i do feel now is the moment for there to be _ do feel now is the moment for there to be an _ do feel now is the moment for there to be an adjustment so that we can -et to be an adjustment so that we can get on _ to be an adjustment so that we can get on with— to be an adjustment so that we can get on with this business and get this bill— get on with this business and get this bill through. get on with this business and get this billthrough. i get on with this business and get this bill through. i want to see this bill through. i want to see this bill— this bill through. i want to see this bill become law today, but i do think— this bill become law today, but i do think we _ this bill become law today, but i do think we need to get it right as welt _ think we need to get it right as well. ., , ., , think we need to get it right as well. . , ., , ., , think we need to get it right as well. ., , ., , . , , ., well. have you been a bit frustrated that the government _ well. have you been a bit frustrated that the government hasn't - well. have you been a bit frustrated that the government hasn't given i well. have you been a bit frustrated that the government hasn't given a| that the government hasn't given a bit more ground here on this? t that the government hasn't given a bit more ground here on this? i have been in government _ bit more ground here on this? i have been in government and _ bit more ground here on this? i have been in government and i've - bit more ground here on this? i have been in government and i've done i been in government and i've done lots of— been in government and i've done lots of those myself. i know the inclination— lots of those myself. i know the inclination of government is to stand — inclination of government is to stand their ground and not seek to compromise. but we are right at the

end of— compromise. but we are right at the end of this _ compromise. but we are right at the end of this process. this is now the detail, _ end of this process. this is now the detail, the — end of this process. this is now the detail, the small print of a bill. it detail, the small print of a bill. it is _ detail, the small print of a bill. it is not — detail, the small print of a bill. it is not the broad principles and whether— it is not the broad principles and whether it — it is not the broad principles and whether it is right or wrong. i sopported _ whether it is right or wrong. i supported the bill at second reading principle _ supported the bill at second reading principle vote and we are now at the end stage _ principle vote and we are now at the end stage where we are just getting the detail— end stage where we are just getting the detail right. that is a moment where _ the detail right. that is a moment where the — the detail right. that is a moment where the government can, without compromising its principles, make the small— compromising its principles, make the small adjustments that will then allow the _ the small adjustments that will then allow the bill to become law, and it is in the _ allow the bill to become law, and it is in the government interests but that bill— is in the government interests but that bill to — is in the government interests but that bill to become an act of parliament as soon as possible. it parliament as soon as possible. sounds like parliament as soon as possible. tit sounds like the parliament as soon as possible. tt sounds like the government is saying that for those people who have potentially served alongside british forces, future ones that might not necessarily be the case. t5 forces, future ones that might not necessarily be the case.— necessarily be the case. is that enou:h necessarily be the case. is that enough for _ necessarily be the case. is that enough for you? _ necessarily be the case. is that enough for you? i _ necessarily be the case. is that enough for you? i think - necessarily be the case. is that enough for you? i think we - necessarily be the case. is that. enough for you? i think we need clarity— enough for you? i think we need clarity here. i understand the government point of view, that they do not _ government point of view, that they do not want — government point of view, that they do not want to vague or opaque a category, _ do not want to vague or opaque a category, but i think we all know then— category, but i think we all know then when— category, but i think we all know then when we see them. they are people _ then when we see them. they are people who are clearly in danger, their— people who are clearly in danger, their cases — people who are clearly in danger, their cases have not yet been resolved _ their cases have not yet been resolved. and i think that it is in

everybody— resolved. and i think that it is in everybody pass interest to clarify that position so that we do not end ”p that position so that we do not end up committing but i would regard as an injustice — up committing but i would regard as an injustice to brave people who have _ an injustice to brave people who have served our country. let's not take _ have served our country. let's not take that — have served our country. let's not take that risk, let's tidy the bill up take that risk, let's tidy the bill up and — take that risk, let's tidy the bill up and make sure we can eliminate that even_ up and make sure we can eliminate that evehas— up and make sure we can eliminate that even as a possibility. the prime minister _ that even as a possibility. t'ta: prime minister says that even as a possibility. tta: prime minister says a 10—12 weeks to get flights of the ground. how will you feel when you see flights taking off to rwanda? tt is you feel when you see flights taking off to rwanda?— off to rwanda? it is a policy i have sopported- — off to rwanda? it is a policy i have sopported- this — off to rwanda? it is a policy i have supported. this is _ off to rwanda? it is a policy i have supported. this is a _ off to rwanda? it is a policy i have supported. this is a challenge - supported. this is a challenge facing — supported. this is a challenge facing the entire western world. 0ther— facing the entire western world. other countries have been looking with interest are trying to do similar— with interest are trying to do similar approaches with third countries, working with them in order— countries, working with them in order to — countries, working with them in order to deal with this challenging issue _ order to deal with this challenging issue i_ order to deal with this challenging issue. i want to see it happen and i want _ issue. i want to see it happen and i want to— issue. i want to see it happen and i want to see — issue. i want to see it happen and i want to see it done in a lawful and sensible _ want to see it done in a lawful and sensible way, which is why i have supported — sensible way, which is why i have supported the other amendment tonight, — supported the other amendment tonight, to make sure that we get the law— tonight, to make sure that we get the law in— tonight, to make sure that we get the law in lockstep with the reality. _ the law in lockstep with the reality, and that is rwanda being a safe country once it has done everything it says it is going to do in that— everything it says it is going to do in that treaty signed last year. we will wait in that treaty signed last year. will wait and in that treaty signed last year. - will wait and see what happens in those about we are expecting in the

next few minutes in the house of lords, whether that amendment on the afghan issue is actually put to the vote. there is another want to do with whether or not an independent monitoring committee should be able to say to the government that rwanda is safe or not before flights can take off. it does seem that there is still a fair amount of support for that particular change it has been brought forward by the house of lords. we are all hoping here it is not going to be too late a night here. someone said you will not need your sleeping bag. taste here. someone said you will not need your sleeping bag-— your sleeping bag. we will have to wait and see- _ your sleeping bag. we will have to wait and see. peter, _ your sleeping bag. we will have to wait and see. peter, thank - your sleeping bag. we will have to wait and see. peter, thank you - your sleeping bag. we will have to wait and see. peter, thank you forj wait and see. peter, thank you for that. and to sir robert buckland. let's go to our political editor, chris mason. perhaps dreading that late night finish. the prime ministers said today, he talked about the need for a regular rhythm of multiple flights which implies he does not think one flight is going to move the dial. t does not think one flight is going to move the dial.— does not think one flight is going to move the dial. i say, come on, this is what _ to move the dial. i say, come on, this is what these _ to move the dial. i say, come on, this is what these knights - to move the dial. i say, come on, this is what these knights are - to move the dial. i say, come on, this is what these knights are alll this is what these knights are all about, a bit of midnight oil being

burnt! and we may well be in that territory in the next couple of hours. it is interesting that you should seize upon that particular line of argument from the prime minister, it is something that has been whispered privately by people in government to me for the last few weeks. what is going on here? they want to create a set of images that continue to appear on tv screens and social media feeds and all the rest of it, all the way through the summer, in the countdown to a general election expected probably in the autumn, that gives a rolling impression that this policy is up and running. and they then hope that that translates into the key thing that translates into the key thing that all of this is about, when we put all of the noise, and my goodness there's been a lot of noise about this policy in the uk for the last couple of years, does actually act as a deterrent? this isn't about act as a deterrent? this isn't about a piece of legislation in the house of commons or the house of lords, it isn't even about how many people they managed to get on a whole

sequence of planes to kigali, it is actually about does it put people off getting on a small bow in northern france or elsewhere and attempting those hairless crossings across the english channel to the uk? that is what the government is seeking to prove it can do. whether it can make that brief stick before the election is an intriguing one, because frankly they are running out of time. but they want to create the impression of a kind of unstoppable momentum, orthat impression of a kind of unstoppable momentum, or that we should put unstoppable in italics because the opposition labour party have said the first thing they will do is stop this policy if they win the general election, even if it is up and running. tt election, even if it is up and running-— election, even if it is up and runninu. , . , . ., running. if it is the centrepiece of their pre-election _ running. if it is the centrepiece of their pre-election campaign, - running. if it is the centrepiece of their pre-election campaign, and| running. if it is the centrepiece of. their pre-election campaign, and if their pre—election campaign, and if we need a flurry of flights in order that it can be proven as a deterrent, does that suggest the election is not coming until the second half of the year?- election is not coming until the second half of the year? that's a aood second half of the year? that's a good question- _ second half of the year? that's a good question. i _ second half of the year? that's a good question. i think— second half of the year? that's a good question. i think when - second half of the year? that's a good question. i think when we i second half of the year? that's a i good question. i think when we do the sort of election extrapolations you could make plausible hypotheses in a million directions. they are all plausible, it doesn't mean

anyone of them is going to be the one that happens. so one hand you might think if you are the prime minister, at the election sufficiently far into the year, the year, the autumn or even late autumn, that you could breathe you have a whole sequence of flights going very frequently and maybe you can make that leap to say it is acting as a deterrent. 0r can make that leap to say it is acting as a deterrent. or you have an election earlier and you say, look, we are onlyjust getting up and running, re—elect us and we will carry on doing this stuff, whereas our opponents will stop it. when you speak to people privately within government, including those who are hugely keen to see this rwanda policy succeed, they will acknowledge that whilst they wanted to succeed because i think the uk has defined an innovative solution to try to put people off those small boat crossings, they will acknowledge privately it is not going to be the difference between winning and losing a general election. they think it is worth taking on for its own sake. 0thers taking on for its own sake. others make an argument within government that they suspect that in the medium term, over the next five or ten

years, countries like the uk will sign up to policies like the one the uk is signing up to with rwanda because there will be a necessity, so the argument goes, from richer countries, european and elsewhere, to have these innovative solutions to have these innovative solutions to unwanted migration, because it will only be that, so the argument goes, that helps stem the volume of those seeking to move. if this policy approves that or not, we will wait to see. qt policy approves that or not, we will wait to see-— wait to see. of course one of the country is _ wait to see. of course one of the country is already _ wait to see. of course one of the country is already looking - wait to see. of course one of the country is already looking at - wait to see. of course one of the country is already looking at thatj country is already looking at that policy. he did talk about the european court of human rights, and we did set out where that challenge might come, is is still serious about pulling the uk out of the echr if it comes to that? tt about pulling the uk out of the echr if it comes to that?— if it comes to that? it was interesting _ if it comes to that? it was interesting hearing - if it comes to that? it was interesting hearing his - if it comes to that? it was - interesting hearing his slightly evasive non—answer to that question. 0n the one hand saying that he thought the infrastructure that the government is assembling will be sufficient to make this policy work, but on the other hand constantly

labelling the european court of human rights as a foreign court. plenty of critics, including those in the house of lords tonight, arguing it is an international court that the uk has chosen to be a signatory. and not entirely rolling out the idea that he could as a conservative party advocate to withdraw from the european convention of human rights as a distinctive marker of difference with the labour party going into the general election, and there is a growing number of conservatives who do you think the logical conclusion of all of this, not just do you think the logical conclusion of all of this, notjust on this policy but a number of others, is likely to be withdrawn from the echr, or at least the beginnings of a discussion about rewriting a convention that its critics think belongs in a different era and isn't suited or wasn't designed for the challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, to challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, no and challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have — challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a _ challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a coffee. _ challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a coffee. it _ challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a coffee. it could - challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a coffee. it could be i challenge of the mid 20 20s. chris, go and have a coffee. it could be a | go and have a coffee. it could be a late one. thank you very much for

your contributions. chris mason in westminster. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. for our uk viewers, let's take a quick look at some of the stories making headlines here today. huw edwards has resigned from the bbc. he says he is leaving on the medical advice of his doctors. he had been off air since lastjuly. the bbc has confirmed that it has not received... not paid out a pay off as part of his departure. the uk parliamentary researcher and another man have been charged with spying for china after alleging the providing information that could be useful to a enemy. they were charged under the official secrets act stop. under the official secrets act the train drivers union aslef has announced a new wave of strikes. i6 train companies will take part between the seventh and the 9th of

may. there will also be an overtime ban between the 6th—iith may. the union wants improved pay and conditions. the rail company industry body says the strike is unnecessary and will hit passengers. you are watching bbc news. we are all too familiar with the sight of the donald trump making his way into a courtroom. but this was a historic day in manhattan. the first time a former president has faced a criminal trial. mr trump has pleaded not guilty to sa counts of falsifying business records, where hush money payments were recorded as "legal expenses" to cover up his affairjust weeks before the election. the prosecution said the former president has "orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt" the election. mr trump said it was a book—keeping issue. a very minor thing, which thejustice department had cooked up to keep him off the campaign trail. what is going on right here should never be happening. it is a very sad day in america. thank you very much.

with me isjohn edward jones. with me isjohn edward jones iii. he is a former us federaljudge and president of the dickinson college in pennsylvania. the opening statements are something like an overture. they set out a road map. what did you make of the two sides and the way they set out their arguments? two sides and the way they set out theirarguments? tt two sides and the way they set out their arguments?— two sides and the way they set out their arguments? it was exactly as i thou . ht it their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would _ their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would be. _ their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would be. it _ their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would be. it is _ their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would be. it is a - their arguments? it was exactly as i thought it would be. it is a road - thought it would be. it is a road map _ thought it would be. it is a road map from _ thought it would be. it is a road map. from the prosecution standpoint, what we know is that the linchpin _ standpoint, what we know is that the linchpin of— standpoint, what we know is that the linchpin of their case is probably michael— linchpin of their case is probably michael cohen. they admit that he is not the _ michael cohen. they admit that he is not the best witness in the world but it _ not the best witness in the world but it seems they have got other witnesses — but it seems they have got other witnesses who will buttress or corroborate his testimony. from the defence _ corroborate his testimony. from the defence perspective, what they did was trivialise the case and basically say this is a case that shouldn't— basically say this is a case that shouldn't have been brought. so what we don't _ shouldn't have been brought. so what we don't know about some of the other— we don't know about some of the other witness testimony, some folks who worked for the former president and what _ who worked for the former president and what they might say, and of

course _ and what they might say, and of course the — and what they might say, and of course the prosecution is playing it close _ course the prosecution is playing it close to _ course the prosecution is playing it close to the vest as far as that testimony. close to the vest as far as that testimony-— close to the vest as far as that testimon . , .,, . ., ., ., testimony. the prosecution have to rove testimony. the prosecution have to prove several _ testimony. the prosecution have to prove several players _ testimony. the prosecution have to prove several players of _ testimony. the prosecution have to prove several players of his - testimony. the prosecution have to prove several players of his intent. | prove several players of his intent. can you help us with the law as it pertains to the 2016 campaign? was it illegal in and of itself to pay stormy daniels? tt it illegal in and of itself to pay stormy daniels?— it illegal in and of itself to pay stormy daniels? it illegal in and of itself to pay storm daniels? ., , ., ~ ., stormy daniels? it was not. and that is really important. _ stormy daniels? it was not. and that is really important. you _ stormy daniels? it was not. and that is really important. you can - stormy daniels? it was not. and that is really important. you can pay - is really important. you can pay hush _ is really important. you can pay hush money, but what happened is they booked it as payments to michael— they booked it as payments to michael cohen for legal services, so there _ michael cohen for legal services, so there is— michael cohen for legal services, so there is a _ michael cohen for legal services, so there is a fraud thing. but that would — there is a fraud thing. but that would normally be what is called a misdemeanour, which is a mid—level offence _ misdemeanour, which is a mid—level offence. however, when you do it to cover— offence. however, when you do it to cover up _ offence. however, when you do it to cover up or— offence. however, when you do it to cover up or to— offence. however, when you do it to cover up orto aid offence. however, when you do it to cover up or to aid another crime, and that— cover up or to aid another crime, and that crime is election interference, it rises to the level of felony. — interference, it rises to the level of felony, which is the most serious offence _ of felony, which is the most serious offence they can be charged with. so they must— offence they can be charged with. so they must prove notjust the documents were fraudulent, that is the checks— documents were fraudulent, that is the checks that were paid as legal fees, _ the checks that were paid as legal fees. but — the checks that were paid as legal fees, but also a case that was not charged. — fees, but also a case that was not charged, election interference. in other— charged, election interference. in

otherwords, charged, election interference. in other words, that he did it to influence _ other words, that he did it to influence the results of the 2016 election — influence the results of the 2016 election. 50 influence the results of the 2016 election. ., , , election. so the former president sa s it is election. so the former president says it is a _ election. so the former president says it is a book-keeping - election. so the former president says it is a book-keeping case, . election. so the former president j says it is a book-keeping case, in says it is a book—keeping case, in fact it is. says it is a book-keeping case, in fact it is. , , says it is a book-keeping case, in factitis. , , , fact it is. exactly, but i suspect that what _ fact it is. exactly, but i suspect that what the _ fact it is. exactly, but i suspect that what the prosecution - fact it is. exactly, but i suspect that what the prosecution has, | fact it is. exactly, but i suspect. that what the prosecution has, if the jury— that what the prosecution has, if the jury believes them, is witnesses that will— the jury believes them, is witnesses that will say that they heard or they _ that will say that they heard or they have _ that will say that they heard or they have got documentary evidence that proves that the former president said, for example, "you have _ president said, for example, "you have got— president said, for example, "you have got to — president said, for example, "you have got to pay this money, it is close _ have got to pay this money, it is close to — have got to pay this money, it is close to the _ have got to pay this money, it is close to the election and if you do not pay— close to the election and if you do not pay the — close to the election and if you do not pay the money she is going to out me" — not pay the money she is going to out me" "i — not pay the money she is going to out me." "i could lose the election over— out me." "i could lose the election over it" _ out me." "i could lose the election over it" they _ out me." "i could lose the election over it." they have not typed that ”p over it." they have not typed that up obviously because they are on their— up obviously because they are on their first — up obviously because they are on their first witness.— their first witness. they have put david packer _ their first witness. they have put david packer on _ their first witness. they have put david packer on these _ their first witness. they have put david packer on these stand - their first witness. they have put| david packer on these stand first. he is from the parent company that owns the national inquiry. he was instrumental to this catch and kill programme that the prosecution allege was in play. why him first? how good a witness is he?- allege was in play. why him first? how good a witness is he? well, we are auoin how good a witness is he? well, we are going to — how good a witness is he? well, we are going to see. — how good a witness is he? well, we

are going to see, we _ how good a witness is he? well, we are going to see, we are _ how good a witness is he? well, we are going to see, we are going - how good a witness is he? well, we are going to see, we are going to i are going to see, we are going to find out — are going to see, we are going to find out he _ are going to see, we are going to find out. he is really an an indicted _ find out. he is really an an indicted co—conspirator. you do not have _ indicted co—conspirator. you do not have to _ indicted co—conspirator. you do not have to charge every co—conspirator. —— unindicted co—conspirator. that entity— —— unindicted co—conspirator. that entity was — —— unindicted co—conspirator. that entity was paying off other folks not to _ entity was paying off other folks not to go — entity was paying off other folks not to go public for truck. so it is to show— not to go public for truck. so it is to show that there is no mistake, there _ to show that there is no mistake, there is— to show that there is no mistake, there is a — to show that there is no mistake, there is a common scheme, this is what _ there is a common scheme, this is what his— there is a common scheme, this is what his proclivity was, to do this. finally, _ what his proclivity was, to do this. finally, with — what his proclivity was, to do this. finally, with your knowledge of the court system, tomorrow the whole thing comes to a grinding halt because thejudge wants thing comes to a grinding halt because the judge wants to have a look at these claims from the prosecution that donald trump has breached the gag order. how strong are those claims, looking at some of the things he has posted on truth social? he the things he has posted on truth social? , ., ., the things he has posted on truth social? , . ., ., ., social? he is a nightmare for a ”residin social? he is a nightmare for a presiding judge- _ social? he is a nightmare for a presidingjudge. i— social? he is a nightmare for a presiding judge. i wouldn't - presiding judge. i wouldn't necessarily want to tangle with some of these _ necessarily want to tangle with some of these issues. in this particular

case: _ of these issues. in this particular case but — of these issues. in this particular case, but the former president date is he basically reposted, republish things— is he basically reposted, republish things that people said. it is a little — things that people said. it is a little cute and he thinks he can get away _ little cute and he thinks he can get away with — little cute and he thinks he can get away with it. i think what you are going _ away with it. i think what you are going to — away with it. i think what you are going to see tomorrow is a hearing on the _ going to see tomorrow is a hearing on the gag — going to see tomorrow is a hearing on the gag order, but i don't think the judge — on the gag order, but i don't think the judge wants to get sidetracked. my guess— the judge wants to get sidetracked. my guess is that he will admonish the former president, saying "i don't _ the former president, saying "i don't care _ the former president, saying "i don't care if you are right tweeting something, you cannot do that." i don't _ something, you cannot do that." i don't think— something, you cannot do that." i don't think he will sanction him. i think— don't think he will sanction him. i think he — don't think he will sanction him. i think he is— don't think he will sanction him. i think he is on thin ice if he does it again — think he is on thin ice if he does it aaain. , ., ~ think he is on thin ice if he does itaaain. , ., ,, think he is on thin ice if he does ita.ain_ , ., ~' ., it again. interesting. thank you for cominu in it again. interesting. thank you for coming in for _ it again. interesting. thank you for coming in for to _ it again. interesting. thank you for coming in for to the _ it again. interesting. thank you for coming in for to the programme. l an independent review of the united nations agency for palestinian refugees says israel has yet to provide evidence for its claim that un workers were members of terrorist organisations. but the report found unrwa needed to improve transparency, its neutrality and its vetting of staff members. the security review was ordered after an allegation from israel that unrwa staff had participated in the october 7th attacks,

and that many others were members of hamas. but the report says the israeli government has yet to provide any "supporting evidence" that "a significant number" of unrwa employees are members of terrorist organisations. nonetheless, there is an extensive list of recommendations, although the committee said it believed unrwa is "irreplaceable and indispensable to palestinians' human and economic development." the review, supported by three nordic research institutes, was headed by the former french foreign minister, overall, the findings of the review are that unwra is in place of a very significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the humanitarian principle of neutrality. actually, they probably have a more developed system than other organisations or agencies. there is always room for

improvement.— there is always room for improvement. there is always room for imrovement. ., ,, ., , improvement. thank you for being with us. improvement. thank you for being with us- can _ improvement. thank you for being with us. can you _ improvement. thank you for being with us. can you help— improvement. thank you for being with us. can you help us— improvement. thank you for being i with us. can you help us understand why israel would make an allegation in the not provide any evidence to support it? in the not provide any evidence to sopport it?— in the not provide any evidence to suort it? , , ., ., support it? yes, they do that quite rerularl . support it? yes, they do that quite regularly- make — support it? yes, they do that quite regularly. make allegations. - support it? yes, they do that quite regularly. make allegations. theyi regularly. make allegations. they made _ regularly. make allegations. they made allegations. and to their shame — made allegations. and to their shame a _ made allegations. and to their shame, a number of western governments run down the rabbit hole after these _ governments run down the rabbit hole after these allegations and cut off funding _ after these allegations and cut off funding to an organisation that was providing _ funding to an organisation that was providing humanitarian assistance to a people _ providing humanitarian assistance to a people, 112 straight days of environment at that time. and desperate starvation as well and famine _ desperate starvation as well and famine and a complete destruction of the health— famine and a complete destruction of the health infrastructure. that was the health infrastructure. that was the time _ the health infrastructure. that was the time western governments decided that the _ the time western governments decided that the allegation that 0.1% of the unrwa _ that the allegation that 0.1% of the unrwa staff working in gas that were connected to the hamas attack. 0.1%, the western—

connected to the hamas attack. 0.1%, the western governments still cut off aid _ the western governments still cut off aid at— the western governments still cut off aid at that time. and that is not going — off aid at that time. and that is not going to be forgotten. that is going _ not going to be forgotten. that is going to — not going to be forgotten. that is going to be remembered. that has gone _ going to be remembered. that has gone down — going to be remembered. that has gone down i think as a pretty bad moment — gone down i think as a pretty bad moment. ., , ., . ~ moment. one of the things that unrwa said in aaivin moment. one of the things that unrwa said in giving evidence _ moment. one of the things that unrwa said in giving evidence to _ moment. one of the things that unrwa said in giving evidence to this _ said in giving evidence to this independent investigation was that the israeli government had not informed unrwa of any concerns relating to unrwa staff, based on the staffing list they had sent since 2011. and so you are bound to question why, if there were long—standing concerns within israel, that was not being reported. exactly. it is part of something else _ exactly. it is part of something else in— exactly. it is part of something else in all— exactly. it is part of something else. in all conflicts, there is disinformation. i'd actuallyjust before — disinformation. i'd actuallyjust before these allegations came out, on the _ before these allegations came out, on the 29th of december, the israeli press _ on the 29th of december, the israeli press leaked a confidential classified document of an attempt to smear— classified document of an attempt to smear unrwa so they would be defunded. so it is part of that. but since _ defunded. so it is part of that. but since we _ defunded. so it is part of that. but since we know that governments do

things— since we know that governments do things like _ since we know that governments do things like that, the western countries's governments felt obliged to cut _ countries's governments felt obliged to cut funding to these desperate populations. to cut funding to these desperate populations-— populations. how do you think governments _ populations. how do you think governments will _ populations. how do you think governments will respond - populations. how do you think governments will respond to l populations. how do you think- governments will respond to today's report? how quickly do you think funding will be restored? t report? how quickly do you think funding will be restored?- funding will be restored? i think the will funding will be restored? i think they will be _ funding will be restored? i think they will be embarrassed - funding will be restored? i think they will be embarrassed about| funding will be restored? i think- they will be embarrassed about what they will be embarrassed about what they did _ they will be embarrassed about what they did i_ they will be embarrassed about what they did. i know they are embarrassed. i think they will restore — embarrassed. i think they will restore, and they really ought to. just finally, in terms of operations within gaza, does unrwa have any operation to speak of without that funding? operation to speak of without that fundin: ? , operation to speak of without that fundina? , , , ., funding? yes, because other countries _ funding? yes, because other countries commendably - funding? yes, because otherj countries commendably have funding? yes, because other- countries commendably have tried to make _ countries commendably have tried to make up— countries commendably have tried to make up the shortfall you are quite right, _ make up the shortfall you are quite right, unrwa doesn't have intelligence, it relies on... the betting — intelligence, it relies on... the betting is— intelligence, it relies on... the betting is actually done by the israelis — betting is actually done by the israelis because, as you pointed out, _ israelis because, as you pointed out, they— israelis because, as you pointed out, they are the ones that receive the information. unrwa does not have the information. unrwa does not have the capacity. it doesn't do all these — the capacity. it doesn't do all these things. so of course they have

more _ these things. so of course they have more information. but it doesn't mean _ more information. but it doesn't mean the — more information. but it doesn't mean the information they give is true _ mean the information they give is true. , ., ., ., mean the information they give is true. , ., ., ~ mean the information they give is true. , ., ., ,, ., true. very good to talk to you. thank you _ true. very good to talk to you. thank you very _ true. very good to talk to you. thank you very much - true. very good to talk to you. thank you very much for - true. very good to talk to you. thank you very much for your. thank you very much for your thoughts on that. we are going to take a short break. we will be back after this. hello there. a bit of a disappointing day again for this stage in april — rather grey, cloudy, damp, certainly across england and wales, where it did feel really chilly once again. and that chilly feel will continue for the rest of the week, with the best of the sunshine towards western areas — always more cloud towards the north and east. you can see the arctic air pretty much lingering across the uk over the next few days, pretty much until we reach the weekend, in fact, where things may turn a bit milder in the south. but we've had thick cloud across england and wales, courtesy of these weather fronts, which have brought outbreaks of light and patchy rain. and that patchy rain will continue across eastern england, spreading southwards into the midlands, southern southeast england through the night. further north and west, we'll have clearer skies here —

so quite a chilly night to come, a touch of frost here and there. further south and east, less cold because we'll have the cloud cover and outbreaks of rain. so, for tuesday, we hold onto our high pressure system sitting out to the west of us — that's what's bringing us these northerly winds and that chilly air. we have that weather front still lingering across the south and east of england. so, rather cloudy start, further patches of rain here through the morning. it doesn't really improve much into the afternoon here, so rather cool and grey, chilly along north sea coast with the odd shower, but some good spells of sunshine further west. where we have plenty of sunshine and shelter, like glasgow, 16—17 celsius — single digits though along the north sea coast, and generally for most, i think highs of around 10—12 celsius. factor in the breeze, it'll feel chillier than that. as we head into tuesday night, early wednesday with i think a greater amount of clearer skies, then it'll be a colder night, i think for most, temperatures from freezing to around four celsius. so wednesday starts chilly, there will be sunshine from the word go —

out west, more cloud, northern and eastern areas, where there'll be more of an onshore breeze for north sea coast, again, feeling quite raw there. but i think it generally a dry day for wednesday, just the chance of the odd shower close towards the east, the north sea coast there, where temperatures will be in single digits. further west again, the low teens. now, as we move through towards the end of the week, we could see this area of low pressure skirting past southern and western areas — that could start to throw up a few more showers in our direction. this could change, the details of this could change, but i think it's looking a bit more unsettled as we head into the weekend, maybe turning a bit milder across the south.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. ukraine's president zelensky welcomes washington's military aid deal, saying it could help turn the tide in the war against russia. we will get to the very shortly. first, let's go to the sports centre with paul scott. we are going to start football. serie a could be crown champions

tonight at ac mainland. —— milan. 51 cell not looking good for them so far. earlier, bologna took a step forward towards champions league qualification with a 3—1win at roma, moving them into fourth. nottingham forest war of words continues with the authorities in england following the defeat on sunday. ickle posted on social media saying they asked video assistant referee to be stood on before the game because he's a luton fan —— the team posted. forests now say the issueis team posted. forests now say the issue is not with any issue, individual, but the game's integrity.