Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and top diplomat Marco Rubio will hold talks with European counterparts in Paris today to discuss efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

The talks - which UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy will also attend - form the highest level of transatlantic engagement about the war since February.

In recent months, the US government has not exactly rushed to consult its European allies.

Thursday's meetings are significant for their happening if nothing else. Witkoff and Rubio will see French President Emmanuel Macron and his team.

How Russia is seizing Ukrainian homes in Mariupol

The US secretary of state will then hold talks with Lammy along with French and German counterparts. European national security advisers will be involved as well.

The US state department said the focus would be on how to end the fighting in Ukraine and Witkoff would report on his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week.

European diplomats said they would urge the US to put more pressure on Russia to agree an unconditional ceasefire.

"We want the US to use a bit more stick," one official said.

France's President Emmanuel Macron says he will set up a commission to study French-Haitian history and the impact of a huge debt imposed on Haiti in exchange for its independence exactly 200 years ago.

Macron said the panel of French and Haitian historians would make recommendations to help build a more "peaceful future".

Haiti gained independence from France in 1804, but in 1825, France ordered that the former colony pay 150m gold francs - later reduced to 90m - to compensate French slave owners and secure an end to hostilities.

The debt, which was not paid off until 1947, contributed to Haiti becoming one of the poorest and most unstable countries in the Americas.

The debt has been a source of anger among Haitians, who have called for France to repay the money.

It is unclear whether financial reparations will be on the table in this commission.

French administrations have acknowledged the historic wrong of slavery in Haiti and other former colonies but have avoided any real discussion over whether they would return the "independence debt".

Macron said the debt "put a price on the freedom of a young nation, which was thus confronted, from its very inception, with the unjust force of history".

"Once this necessary and indispensable work has been completed, this commission will propose recommendations to both governments, so that they can learn from them and build a more peaceful future," he added.

In an interview with Le Monde on Thursday, Haitian writer Monique Clesca said that France is "losing influence in the world, particularly in Africa. Its former colonies are turning their backs on it".

Macron can go some way to changing this by acknowledging the "injustice" of the debt, she said.

"This recognition will not erase the harm that has been done, but it could ease some pain."

Haiti is currently wracked by economic chaos, little functioning political control, and increasingly violent gang warfare.

More than 5,500 people were killed in gang-related violence in the Caribbean nation in 2024 and more than a million people have fled their homes.

Haiti's transitional presidential council, the body created to re-establish democratic order, has made little progress towards organising long-delayed elections.

Holidaymakers heading to Tenerife in the Canary Islands are warned to prepare for disruption as hotel workers take part in strikes at the start of the Easter bank holiday weekend.

Organisers say workers on the island are striking on Thursday and Friday in a row over pay and conditions.

The industrial action was due to be across the Canary Islands but an agreement was reached on Gran Canaria, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura.

Unions say around 80,000 hotel workers on Tenerife, La Palma, La Gomera and El Hierro will still take action.

The UK Foreign Office warned travellers to expect disruption over the Easter weekend and to check their tour operator's advice and follow the advice of authorities.

By law, strikers have to provide a "minimum service" but the Comisiones Obreras union, which called the strike, says hotel cleaning, food and entertainment do not fall into this category.

It says suggestions that minimum service should include things such as reception and concierge or cleaning, restaurants and cooking, infringe upon the workers' right to strike.

"The imposition of minimum services constitutes an illegitimate, disproportionate, and legally unsustainable restriction on the fundamental right to strike," the union said in a press release.

Fernando Cambon Solino is among those protesting.

He moved to Tenerife for work.

"Everybody knows the Canary Islands," he said. "You come here and you enjoy the sun, the beaches, the view. But it's not the same for the people who are working here."

Rodrigo Padilla is a journalist in Tenerife and was at a protest supporting his mother who works as a waitress.

He said the issue was with both pay and conditions.

"My mother leaves the house at 6am and it takes three or four hours to get to work and the same after her shift."

The industrial action comes after a series of protests last year in the Canary Islands and Spanish mainland over mass tourism.

Locals say tourism has pushed up housing costs beyond a sustainable level for people to live on the islands.

They stress they are not against the tourism industry, which makes up 35% of the Canaries' economy, but there was a need for a more sustainable model that factored in environmental impacts such as water shortages and which puts less pressure on costs and housing.

The US embassy in Zambia has warned its citizens to be wary of a new "intrusive" cyber-security law introduced in the southern African country.

The embassy issued an alert telling Americans "in or planning to visit Zambia of a new law that requires the interception and surveillance of all electronic communications in the country".

This includes calls, emails, texts and streamed content "in-country to assess if they include any transmission of 'critical information,' a term the law defines so broadly that it could apply to almost any activity", the embassy says.

Zambia's government said the law was needed to tackle online fraud and child pornography, as well as the spread of disinformation.

Following the alert from the US embassy, Zambia's foreign ministry released a statement saying that the new Cyber Security Act was "not intended to invade any person's privacy" - whether Zambians or foreigners.

"The Law does not authorize mass or random surveillance. Any interception or data request requires a court-issued warrant," it said.

The statement added that the "classification of 'critical information'" referred to national security, "and any assessments or actions taken are carried out by authorized institutions, in line with due process".

There are fears that the law could be use against anyone who criticises the government, especially with elections due next year.

Some Zambians have expressed concern that a new cyber-security unit is being set up in the president's office.

The new measure empowers a law enforcement officer with a warrant to enter any premises to search and seize a computer or computer system containing material that is either evidence necessary to prove an offence or acquired by a person as a result of an offence.

It also allows the government to extradite Zambians deemed to have committed any offence under the law, with a range of jail terms prescribed.

Offenders may be fined or jailed for between five and 15 years, depending on the crime they have committed.

Among other provisions, the legislation requires Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies to proactively intercept all electronic communications.

It was signed into law by President Hakainde Hichilema on 8 April with very little publicity and the first many Zambians knew about it was when the US embassy posted its alert on Facebook.

"As this new law introduces an intrusive surveillance ecosystem significantly different from privacy protection provisions that prevail in many countries, the embassy of the United States encourages Americans living in Zambia or considering visiting the country to carefully assess the implications of this law and adjust accordingly," the US statement said.

The alert came as a surprise to many as the US has widely been seen to enjoy a warm relationship with the Hichilema-led administration, although the ambassador has recently been critical of alleged corruption in the government.

Zambia had enjoyed a frosty relationship with the US after the former government expelled its pro-gay rights ambassador Daniel Foote in 2019 but relations had improved since Hichilema was elected in 2021.

Social commentator and civil rights activist Laura Miti accused the US embassy of "hypocrisy", while also labelling the new law "tyrannical".

"Until Edward Snowden revealed the matter, the US secretly surveilled its citizens for years. He remains in exile and one of the most wanted people by American law enforcement," she wrote on Facebook. "That raises an eyebrow about this from the American embassy. Hypocritical really."

However, she also condemned the new law.

"This... is a very tyrannical law which the government only needs because it feels insecure."

In 2021, while still in opposition, Hichilema opposed a similar law when the former government wanted to pass it, writing: "The Cyber Security and Crime Bill is not about preventing cyber-bullying. It is about clamping down on freedom of expression and spying on citizens."

Opposition lawmaker Miles Sampa has accused Hichilema of performing a U-turn now that he is president.

"My question is when did you change this stance to now sign a law that almost 100% prohibits us citizens from expressing ourselves on Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, etc., without being jailed for 25 years or life imprisonment," he wrote on Facebook.

"In the current state of the Cyber Laws that you have assented to, Mr President, you may as well also sign a martial law (State of Emergency) to discard democracy so we all stop talking and leave it to your good self to express alone."

More Zambia stories from the BBC:

• Zambia president orders ministers to stop sleeping in cabinet
• Bitcoin in the bush - the crypto mine in remote Zambia
• Drunken Zambian policeman freed 13 suspects to celebrate New Year
• ‘My son is a drug addict, please help’ - the actor breaking a Zambian taboo

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

The Swiss ski resort of Zermatt was cut off and tourists and residents were told to stay indoors in the French resort of Tignes because of heavy snow in the Alps on Thursday.

Tignes Mayor Serge Revial said there was a high risk of avalanches and "we had to make a decision to protect people", after more than a metre of snow was dumped over the town.

Although snow is not uncommon in the Alps in April, the disruption left thousands of homes in the Savoie region of eastern France without power.

In neighbouring Switzerland, the Simplon Pass into Italy and the Great St Bernard Tunnel were closed to traffic, while two cantons were badly affected.

In Valais and Bernese Oberland, tourists heading for ski holidays were hit by the disruption.

Road and rail routes were cut off into the resort of Zermatt in the southern canton of Valais; power was cut throughout Thursday and mobile phone networks were badly disrupted.

Queues built up outside the only supermarket open in the town, according to Swiss media.

The Alertswiss app warned of the risk of avalanches and falling trees in Valais as well as major disruption to transport. Schools were closed for the day in the city of Sion.

People travelling to the area for Easter were advised to delay their trips until Saturday. Local police urged people to stay at home if possible.

South of Zermatt, power outages were reported in 37 of the 74 municipalities in the Aosta Valley in north-west Italy, and a bridge collapsed in Biella in nearby Piedmont.

The biggest problem in north-west Italy was heavy rain, as rivers burst their banks and a 92-year-old man was thought to have drowned because of flooding in his home at Monteu da Po near Turin.

A torrent of water cascaded through the streets of the village, in hills close to the River Po.

Red alerts were issued in several valleys, but the biggest concern was for the Po where river levels were expected to peak in the next 24 hours.

Meteorologists said in some areas more than 20cm of rain had fallen in 36 hours, and extreme peaks had been recorded of even higher levels.

"It's been raining non-stop for days, very, very hard, although it's stopped now," Manuela, a 33-year-old Turin resident, told the BBC.

"Two rivers, the Po and the Dora, near Turin have burst their banks. The city is fine but they had to shut several bars and restaurants by the river in Turin."

The UK government has temporarily banned people from bringing cheese and some meats from the European Union (EU) into the country to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease.

But what does that actually mean in practice - and should you be concerned?

What has been banned?

Pork, beef, lamb, mutton, goat, venison and any other products made from these meats - such as sausages - from the EU have been banned. It also applies to pet food.

In addition, milk and dairy products - like butter, cheese and yoghurt - from the EU have also been prohibited.

It covers items such as sandwiches and cured meats as well as raw meats and milk "regardless of whether it is packed or packaged or whether it has been bought at duty free".

However, there are exceptions such as chicken, duck, goose and any other products made from these.

Who does the ban apply to?

The measure is only directed at people arriving in Great Britain - as in, England, Wales or Scotland - from the EU.

It does not apply to Northern Ireland, which has its own measures in place to contain foot and mouth disease.

The ban covers anyone travelling by any mode of transport - whether that's by plane, train, bus or by car.

But it will not be imposed on those arriving to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man.

Are commercially imported cheeses and meats banned too?

The ban only applies to travellers bringing in items personally - not commercial importers such as farmers or shops.

The reason, according to the UK government, is that commercial meat and cheese imports face higher standards than individuals are subjected to.

They must go through heat treatment, which is meant to kill germs, and come with health certificates signed by vets.

How can animals get foot and mouth disease from meat and dairy products?

The disease typically spreads between animals through direct contact. But they can also catch it by eating contaminated meat or dairy products.

Any products of animal origin, like meat and dairy, could be contaminated with foot and mouth disease.

Even if they are for human consumption, if they are thrown away in a way that could come into contact with foraging wildlife or domestic livestock, that presents a risk.

Should I be worried?

Foot and mouth disease is harmless to humans and there are no cases in the UK - but it is highly contagious for animals.

It affects cattle, sheep, pigs and, according to the government, "other cloven-hoofed animals such as wild boar, deer, llamas and alpacas".

Animals that catch it typically come down with a high temperature before developing blisters, usually around the mouth or feet. It can make animals lame and, for the very young, result in fatalities.

How long will the ban last?

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs introduced the measure on Saturday, 12 April and did not give an end date.

The BBC understands the ban will stay in place until the government believes there is no significant risk from travellers bringing banned meat and dairy into Great Britain.

Why didn't I know about this?

The government put out a release last Friday ahead of the ban coming into force on Saturday.

It told border control and airlines to make passengers aware of the rules and has rolled out a digital and social media campaign.

However, many people who have travelled from the EU to Great Britain since the weekend told the BBC they were unaware of the measure and were not told - with no signs in the airport and no checks carried out.

Anyone travelling should follow the rules.

The government says items could be seized and destroyed at the border and, in serious cases, offenders could be fined up to £5,000 in England.

A so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clause has been added to new plans for mandatory reporting of concerns around child sexual abuse.

The Crime and Policing Bill puts a new duty on teachers, GPs, and other professionals to report concerns or face criminal sanctions.

Mandatory reporting was one of the 20 recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) following the grooming gangs scandal.

However, an exclusion has been added for consensual sexual relationships between older teenagers, as long as there are no concerns around harm.

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet were fictional teenage lovers, whose forbidden romance ended in tragedy, but who have become synonymous with youthful love.

Labour's Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, who put forward the amendment during a committee hearing on the bill, said she wanted to provide "some discretion" in a limited number of situations " to avoid unintentional consequences".

Phillips said: "This avoids situations such as two kissing teenagers having to be reported to the authorities by a teacher who knows them both well...

"Nor do we want to discourage young people from accessing services that are designed to offer support in addressing their own harmful sexual behaviour."

The clause would not apply if either child was aged under 13 years old, if there was suspicion of coercion or abuse, or if there was a significant difference in age or maturity.

Responding in the debate, Conservative MP Harriet Cross backed the clause, which she said recognised that age differences were important in these relationships.

"For example, if a 14-year-old girl is sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, even if she says she has consented, a teacher or adult might rightly feel uneasy about the power dynamic and the possible impact of grooming," she said. "The adult might decide that it is appropriate to report in that case.

"On the other hand, two 14-year-olds would likely fall under the exemption."

Cross said it would allow professionals to use their judgement - but stressed the bar for not reporting should be high.

"It recognises that not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention," she said.

"Specifically, it lets professionals refrain from reporting consensual sexual activity between older teenagers when they believe there is no abuse or exploitation at play - it is basically a Romeo and Juliet exemption.

"...The exemption is not about condoning under-age sex, it is about proportionality."

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

The UK's largest teaching union will "make Labour MPs pay a high political price" if the government does not offer teachers in England a fully funded, above-inflation pay rise, its general secretary has said.

Daniel Kebede said members of the National Education Union (NEU) "expect better from a Labour government" than the pay recommendation ministers have made.

He said NEU members would campaign in Labour constituencies if it did not change - and "stand ready to strike".

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said "any move towards industrial action by teaching unions would be indefensible".

The government has recommended a 2.8% pay rise for teachers in England and expects most schools will need to make "efficiencies" to fund it.

The NEU agreed at its conference in Harrogate this week that it would hold a formal ballot on strike action if the offer remains "unacceptable", or if no extra funding is announced.

Phillipson has said: "With school staff, parents and young people working so hard to turn the tide on school attendance, any move towards industrial action by teaching unions would be indefensible.

"Following a 5.5% pay award in a hugely challenging fiscal context, I would urge NEU to put children first."

Responding to her comments, Mr Kebede told conference it was "indefensible for a Labour government – a Labour government – to cut school funding".

"After 14 years of Conservative austerity, we expect better from a Labour government," he said.

He said the final pay award must be above inflation and fully funded, representing a "correction" of teacher pay and helping to recruit and retain staff, otherwise "we stand ready to act industrially".

"We will make Labour MPs pay a high political price through our campaigning in their constituencies, with our parents, across this country," he said.

"No teacher wants to strike, but we stand ready."

Mr Kebede accused the government of a "betrayal" when it came to education funding.

Mr Kebede also commented on a row with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage on Tuesday after the NEU branded Reform UK a "racist and far-right" party.

During the clash, Mr Kebede called Farage a "right-wing populist" but did not describe him as racist, while Mr Farage vowed to "go to war" with the teaching unions if it won the next general election.

On Thursday, Mr Kebede told NEU members that Farage "knows nothing about education".

"And whilst this government might be rolling out the red carpet for Nigel Farage to walk into No 10, through their austerity agenda, we won't stand for it," he said.

After years of argument and dispute about the meaning of gender, the watchword of Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling has to be clarity.

Equality law has been made clear with the unambiguous statement that the term "woman" refers to a biological woman and does not include biological men who have transitioned to being female.

It is a "victory for common sense", according to the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Baroness Falkner added: "If a male is allowed to use a women-only service, it isn't any longer a single-sex space."

This is a world away from the carefully chosen language which has been used to navigate gender issues for much of the last decade.

The Equality Act, which protects people who have been through gender reassignment from harassment, discrimination and sex discrimination, is enforced by the EHRC.

It is now updating its statutory code of conduct to take account of the judgment, saying that, with this new framework, it should be in a better position to enforce the law where it finds breaches.

It was directly involved in the Supreme Court case because it said inconsistencies over whether the term sex included or excluded transgender people with gender recognition certificates (GRC) was making equality law unworkable.

The ruling removes any ambiguity. Now, a GRC will not change a person's legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

What does the ruling mean in practice?

Public bodies - from the NHS and prisons to sports clubs and businesses - will already be reviewing their policies.

Women's toilets, changing rooms and other single sex spaces will be for biological women only.

In theory, that means a transgender man or woman should use facilities that correspond to their biological sex.

However, this is likely to present other difficulties as the person will be presenting as their gender identity to the outside world.

Baroness Falkner argues that transgender people should use "their power of advocacy" to persuade organisations to provide third spaces such as unisex toilets.

Cases such as that of the nurse, Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after refusing to share a changing room with a transgender doctor, are likely to be reviewed.

NHS Fife, the health board involved in the case, told the BBC that it noted the clarity provided by the ruling and would "carefully consider the judgment".

What it means for sport

Following the ruling, transwomen cannot compete in women's sport, the EHRC says.

Sport has been one of the most hotly contested areas in the debate about gender. In recent years, many sports have tightened rules around transgender athletics at elite levels.

Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women's events.

Other sports have put eligibility criteria in place. Earlier this month, the English Football Association introduced stricter rules - but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women's game on the condition that their testosterone was kept below a certain level.

However, it will take time to consider the implications on eligibility in elite sport, so there will not be any immediate change. Governing bodies are not compelled to amend or reconsider their rules - but if their rules now break equality law, they could face enforcement action.

For some there will be concerns about what the ruling means for transgender people.

The Supreme Court justices emphasised that transgender people already have protections against discrimination and harassment written into the Equality Act.

The EHRC will look to protect these rights, and Baroness Falkner said they "stand ready to support those people".

Trans rights campaigners have said they will be examining the judgment closely to decide their next steps - and it is possible they could attempt to put pressure on the government to change the Equality Act.

Campaigners have warned the UK Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman could have "dire consequences" for the safety of trans people.

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman told BBC Scotland News the trans community is now worried that "people are coming after their right to exist" as a result of the ruling.

And Kerrie Meyer, who had gender reassignment at the age of 72, criticised the ruling and said it would set back progress for trans people.

Judges unanimously ruled on Wednesday that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the decision would result in an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons, potentially affecting spaces such as hospital wards, changing rooms and domestic refuges.

The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.

But judges sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to those born female.

Kerrie Meyer, who lives in Shetland, argued that the ruling meant that: "At the stroke of pen, the security and well-being of all transgender people, whether now deemed as biological male and female, is in jeopardy.

"The Supreme Court's ruling has created severe implications for all trans people and has failed to take into account the dire consequences and untenable results that will occur."

Kerrie, who is now 77, moved to Shetland from Hastings in East Sussex in 2008 and was founder of the Shetland Islands Pride festival.

She said the rights of trans people had been advanced by the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, and that she believes the Supreme Court case was motivated by "reserving and maintaining" woman's spaces from trans women, regardless of whether they held a GRC

Kerrie told BBC Radio Scotland that it would be "totally and utterly ridiculous" for her to change her behaviour in public, adding: "I was born a man. Under the law I am a woman. I dress like a woman. I act like a woman. And I am a woman.

"If I go to the toilet and there is another woman in there, they don't know whether I have got a gender recognition certificate or not."

Kerrie also believes that recognition certificates should only be granted if someone has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Under the new ruling, a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have a right to use a space or service designated as women only, even if they have legally changed their gender.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said trans people should use their "power of advocacy" to ask for facilities including a "third space" for toilets.

She told the BBC's Today programme: "Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex. If a male person is allowed to use, it no longer is a single sex space."

She added the ruling was "a victory for common sense only if you recognise that trans people exist, they have rights and their rights must be respected".

Baroness Kishwer added public bodies like the NHS would be expected to update their advice, and that the EHRC would pursue any organisations which did not.

'Stoking the fires of culture war'

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman, a prominent supporter of trans rights, told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme the decision would "stoke the fires of the culture war" and trans people now feared they could lose access to facilities they've used, in some cases, for decades.

She said: "The response by For Women Scotland and other associated groups was very, very clear - they are taking this as a victory and that is potentially dangerous about where they go next.

"We've already heard people say they want to repeal the gender recognition act 2004, and trans people are worried that people are coming after their right to exist."

She added that trans people had been attacked in recent years "just for being who they are" and she was "concerned" about the impact of the Supreme Court decision.

However Rachel Hamilton, of the Scottish Conservatives, told Good Morning Scotland the court's decision was " basic common sense" and would being "clarity" to the trans debate.

She said: "The reason we ended up at the Supreme Court is because there was confusion in Scotland. Now we have a clear and unambiguous decision on what is a biological woman."

She said the Scottish government must set out a ministerial statement on how they would move forward with the Supreme Court ruling.

Ash Regan, the Alba party MSP who quit the SNP over the party's stance on gender, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament calling for "urgent action" to end self-identification in Scottish hospitals, public bodies, schools and prisons.

She claimed it was a "victory for women across the country" and that current gender self-identification laws jeopardised "the safety, privacy and dignity" of women and girls.

Regan told BBC Scotland News the verdict yesterday was a "humiliation" for the Scottish government.

She added: "The government has been making a mockery of Scotland by going to the Supreme Court to argue that men can be lesbians. They've got to take notice of this - this ideology has taken root across the public sector.

"The government could start [upholding women's rights] today by issuing very clear guidance for the whole of the public sector and they could send out a very strong signal by removing men from the women's prison estate."

An updated code of practice by the EHRC is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

The code helps service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice.

The Scottish government's finance minister Shona Robison previously told BBC News the administration would work with the EHRC and the UK government "at pace" on the guidance.

British Transport Police announced that while previously someone with a GRC could be searched by their acquired sex, officers have now been advised that same sex searches in custody would be undertaken by the person's biological birth sex.