Hello, im Annita Mcveigh and welcome to verified live, three hours of breaking stories and checking out the truth behind them. Three days after irans unprecedented attack on israel, diplomacy is intensifying to ease tensions in this region and the risk of a dangerous escalatory spiral. Later. The team seeks many suggestions but said israel would make its own decisions. Translation i am now coming from meetings i with the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain and germany. Last night, i spoke to british Prime Minister rishi sunak and soon i will also speak to other leaders. I thank our friends for their support in defending israel, and i say this for both the verbal support and support in actions. They also have all kinds of proposal and advice, i appreciate it, but i want to be clear we will make our decisions on our own, and the state of israel will do what it needs defend itself. After his meeting with mr netanyahu, lord cameron spoke to reporters, who asked him if he was satisfied that israel wasnt going to do anything that might exacerbate the situation. We wanted to demonstrate our solidarity with israel because it was an appalling attack by iran, but to be clear, we have repeated our view that any response should be smart and designed in a way that is going to limit and try to de escalate this conflict. Nobody wants to see this conflict grow and spread, and so those were the things we were discussing. But at the same time, i think its really important for the eyes of the world to switch to looking at the situation in gaza, where hamas have now held these hostages for 193 days. They have been offered a good deal to release dozens of prisoners from israeli jails in exchange for a pause in the fighting and for a small number of hostages to be released. They should take that deal, and when the world sees theyre not taking that deal, everyone should recognise its hamas that is causing this conflict to continue. As ive said, we do not want to see escalation. We hope that anything israel does is as limited, as targeted and as smart as possible. Its in no one� s interest that we see escalation, and that is what we said very clearly to all the people ive been speaking to here in israel. But at the same time, we should also recognise some things that are going in the right direction, and that is huge amounts of aid now potentially coming into gaza, the opening of ashdod port, the opening of new crossings, up to 500 trucks a day. These are things weve been asking for, for a long time, and to be fair to the israeli government, they have now accepted that and its now a question of delivering those things and the early signs are encouraging. I think we are seeing a genuine change in israels attitude of aid getting into gaza. They have made a series of promises about opening the port at ashdod, about opening new crossing points into gaza and aiming for 500 trucks a day, switching the water back on into gaza, allowing more to come through the so called jordan corridor. These are important promises, there are early signs there are improvements being delivered, but we will want to check day by day that it really is happening, because it is so important we get that aid into gaza, we get people fed, water, the shelter and the medicine they need. Big changes have been promised by the israelis, and we believe some things are happening and we want to make sure they all happen. Meanwhile, the United Nations is launching a 2. 8 billion appeal to provide aid to palestinians in the gaza strip and occupied west bank. 0rganisers say 90 of the funding would go to gaza, as aid workers there struggle to prevent famine. Theyve warned that thousands of people dont have the food and supplies they need particularly in the north of the territory. Theyll also focus on re establishing Health Services and infrastructure, including water supplies, which have been destroyed during the war. Live now to our correspondent wyre davies injerusalem. Wyre, hello to you. Where have the diplomatic efforts got to so far today . What is your assessment . I think we got there from lord cameron, some sort of realistic reluctant acknowledgement that israel is going to do something. For the first couple of days after those iranian attacks at the weekend and about 200 projectiles launched towards israel, there was some hope, certainly amongst The Americans and israels allies, that i would be it. Joe biden called on mr netanyahu to take the win full time that clearly is not enough for netanyahu. Certainly it is not enough for those quite hard line right wing members of his cabinet, who really want israel to launch an all out attack on iran. That clearly is not going to happen, but israel has said it will do something, and mr netanyahus response today was fairly fat. He thanked his friends. They have all kinds of digestions and advice, which i appreciate. I would also like to clarify, we will make our own decisions ourselves. Fairly clear israel wants to do something to retaliate against iran, it is what form that retaliation takes that is the next step. 0ver takes that is the next step. Over the last few months and years, israel has been suspected of attacking shipments of weapons from iran to hezbollah in southern lebanon. That kind of thing can be stepped up. I dont think we know if there are good to be any direct attacks against Iranian Nuclear facilities or facilities attacks against Iranian Nuclear facilities orfacilities going to be. That would be very worrisome because it would lead, according to the iranians, to another response from iran itself. We get that tit for tat result, which could in the eyes of some people lead to the escalation into a much more dangerous regional war, and of course that is the one thing that lord cameron and others are eager to avoid. � ,. , avoid. And the g7 meeting later, what are their avoid. And the g7 meeting later, what are their options . Avoid. And the g7 meeting later, what are their options . Their what are their options . Their o tions what are their options . Their options are. What are their options . Their options are, and what are their options . Their options are, and they what are their options . Iie options are, and they promised what are their options . Tie options are, and they promised its pretty clear, to organise more sanctions against iran for it is quite ironic that in the lead up to what happened last weekend, mr netanyahu was very much. He had been criticised by The Americans, the british, for his approach to the war in gaza, the humanitarian situation, and now of course the west is bending over backwards to accommodate benjamin netanyahu, because they dont want this escalation of the concert against iran, and i think to that and we will see more sanctions against the iranians being proposed at the g7 summit in italy. Gk. Iranians being proposed at the g7 summit in italy. Iranians being proposed at the g7 summit in italy. 0k, thank you for that update. Summit in italy. 0k, thank you for that update, wyre. Summit in italy. 0k, thank you for that update, wyre. Wyre summit in italy. 0k, thank you for that update, wyre. Wyre davies i summit in italy. 0k, thank you for that update, wyre. Wyre davies in jerusalem. The actor hugh grant has settled his privacy case against the publisher of the sun newspaper. According to court documents, mr grant claimed the sun used private investigators to tap his phone and burgle his house. The terms of the settlement have not been made public, but hugh grant says hes been offered an enormous sum of money. A spokesman for News Group Newspapers says the sun does not accept liability or make any admissions to the allegations. My colleague Sarah Campbell has been following the case. It had been expected that in january of next year, he would have his time in court in this case against a News Group Newspapers, the publishers of the sun. News Group Newspapers, the publishers of the sun. And he is one of several individuals, including, as you say, prince harry, suing this group for unlawful information gathering. So in mr grants case, that means tapping of landlines, he alleges, bugging his house, bugging his car, using Blagging Methods to Access Medical information. And he had been very vocal about this, and so it was somewhat of a surprise when, at a Court Hearing this morning, it emerged that mr grant had in fact settled his case. And a short while later, he released a long thread on x, formerly known as twitter, explaining why. He said the publisher was offering him an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court. He went on that he did not want to accept it or settle, as he wanted to see those allegations tested in court, but that his lawyers had advised him that if he went to court and if he won, if the damages he was offered were even just a penny less than the settlement, he would have to pay the legal costs of both sides. And he said that would amount to Something Like £10 million. News Group Newspapers have previously rejected allegations of any wrongdoing by staff at the sun, and they have settled more than 1,000 cases without making any admission of liability. That is exactly what has happened here. They have released a statement in relation to mr grants case saying we have reached an agreement to settle the case, this has been done without an admission of liability, it is in both partys financial interests not to progress to a costly trial, and just to say, mr grant says he will use that settlement money to boost groups like hacked off, which campaigns against what it sees as wrongdoing by the press. Sarah campbell. Mps have rejected all the changes made to the rwanda bill by The House Of Lords. The amendments included proposals to prevent former Afghan Soldiers who served alongside British Forces from being sent to the east african nation. The bill is expected to be considered again by The House Of Lords later today. Lets speak to our Political Correspondent pete saull. Pete, it feels a bit like parliamentary ping pong, it is going between the two houses of parliament. Just bring us up to date with exactly where we are with this bill, then. We with exactly where we are with this bill, then. ~ i, i, bill, then. We are in the halftime interval of bill, then. We are in the halftime interval of that bill, then. We are in the halftime interval of that game bill, then. We are in the halftime interval of that game of interval of that game of parliamentary ping pong at the moment. As you say the House Of Commons rejected those four amendments that had been put forward by The House Of Lords yesterday, that was a bit of formality. The government has got a majority in the comments so its been batted back to the lords. The expectation is the debate in the lords will get under way injust under an hours debate in the lords will get under way in just under an hours time and then they will start voting again. What i am told is they will vote on two different amendments, so gradually the numbers of those changes are reducing. The first being one to do with something called the rwanda committee, an organisation made up of experts and lawyers that will oversee the treaty that the uk has signed with rwanda, and the amendment gives that committee greater powers to effectively say look, it is not a safe country as the legislation says that It Safe Country as the legislation says thatitis, safe country as the legislation says that it is, if some of those conditions that the treaty sets out are not met. The Second Amendment is likely to do with this issue of whether or not people who have fought alongside British Armed forces in places like afghanistan should be exempt from being deported to rwanda, and i am told from the labour side that the support for both of those admins holding up quite strongly. What they dont know is how many of the so called ping pong battalion, this is how they refer to the conservatives who dont often appear in The House Of Lords but sometimes turn up on next like this, when the government needs to boost its numbers, whether they will turn up en masse and finally mean the lords does back down this evening. If it does, the legislation will probably get whats called royal assent tomorrow and make its way onto the statute book. Qm. Royal assent tomorrow and make its way onto the statute book. 0k, pete, thank ou way onto the statute book. 0k, pete, thank you very way onto the statute book. 0k, pete, thank you very much. Around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. Paedophiles convicted of serious Sexual Offences could lose their parental rights under a new law. This follows a bbc report into a mother who spent £30,000 in legal fees to stop her paedophile ex husband getting access to their daughter. After hearing this story, labour mp Harriet Harman tabled an amendment to the legislation to cover the most serious Sexual Offence rape of a child under 13. I spoke with her from Westminster A little earlier. It was a glaring anomaly in the law, it was not even a loophole, it was just that when in the 19905 restrictions were introduced so that if someone was convicted of a serious Sexual Offence, they would then be put on the Sexual Offences register, they were not able to work with children or teach in schools or work in a childrens home, or do fostering, all those restrictions were put into protective children from somebody who had been convicted of a serious Sexual Offence, and yet his own children were not protected, because the idea was that he still had parental rights. So it wasjust left to the mother if she could to manage to go to court to protect her child, and what this new change in the law will do is it will say that just as we protect other peoples children from serious sexual offenders, his own children must be protected too and he must lose his parental rights if he commits a serious Sexual Offence. find parental rights if he commits a serious Sexual Offence. And you had heard this story, serious Sexual Offence. And you had heard this story, as serious Sexual Offence. And you had heard this story, as we serious Sexual Offence. And you had heard this story, as we mentioned l heard this story, as we mentioned in the introduction, from our correspondent sanchia berg, explain how this mother have to spend £30,000, her parents remortgage to their home to raise the money for their home to raise the money for the legal fees. Their home to raise the money for the legalfees. Again, it their home to raise the money for the legal fees. Again, it seems shocking a parent, a mum should have to go to these lengths to protect her child. It to go to these lengths to protect her child. , i, i, i, to go to these lengths to protect her child. I i, i, i, i, her child. It is extraordinary what the did her child. It is extraordinary what they did and her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it cost her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it cost them her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it cost them a her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it cost them a lot. Her child. It is extraordinary what they did and it cost them a lot of| they did and it cost them a lot of money and took an awful lot of bravery and a long time, but it should not ever be like that. It should not ever be like that. It should not ever be like that. It should not be just down to the mother to protect her children from the father who is a serious sex offender, it should be the law that actually protect them, so really this has been a gap in the law and it was exposed by the fact of sanchia berg, bbc reported, going into the Family Courts because theres now limited opening up of theres now limited opening up of the Family Courts, its all still anonymous, but she was able to sit in a family court, hear this case and then report it, and then its the basis of those reports that everybody is saying, this is obviously wrong, we need to change the law. � i, i, i, the law. And does the lot need to be strengthened further the law. And does the lot need to be strengthened further in the law. And does the lot need to be strengthened further in your strengthened further in your opinion . I strengthened further in your oinion . , strengthened further in your oinion . ~ i, i, opinion . I think the government want to start with opinion . I think the government want to start with dealing opinion . I think the government want to start with dealing with opinion . I think the government want to start with dealing with just to start with dealing with just those who have committed the most very serious Sexual Offences against children, which is the rape of a children, which is the rape of a child of 13 or under, but clearly the intention from the government is to expand it once it has been introduced, but i think the most important thing is that the principal has been established that actually what should be a priority is the protection of the child, not the rights of the father, and parental responsibility is a privilege, its not a right, and actually if you commit a serious Sexual Offence, you should forfeit that right as a father. Harriet harman, a