In a watering down of one of the key measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will now be six months - down from 24 months currently.

Labour wanted to bring in protections from day one in the job but faced opposition from some businesses.

Responding to criticism, Peter Kyle, the business secretary, said "compromise is strength" and an "art" that had been lost in recent years, hailing the move as a "great success" for the economy, workers and employers.

The changes also mean there will be no statutory probation period and workers will still get sick pay from day one in the job and paternity leave from April next year.

Ministers said reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal was a "workable package" that will "benefit millions of working people who will gain new rights and offer business and employers much-needed clarity".

Businesses have largely welcomed the change, but unions gave a more hostile response.

Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said the bill was now a "shell of its former self".

"With fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts not being banned, the bill is already unrecognisable," she said.

"These constant row backs will only damage workers' confidence that the protections promised will be worth the wait. Labour needs to keep its promises."

The TUC urged the House of Lords to allow the rest of the legislation to pass.

Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: "The Employment Rights Bill is essential to better quality, more secure jobs for millions of workers across the economy.

"The absolute priority now is to get these rights - like day one sick pay - on the statute book so that working people can start benefitting from them from next April.

"Following the government's announcement, it is now vital that peers respect Labour's manifesto mandate and that this bill secures royal assent as quickly as possible."

The Employment Rights Bill was a cornerstone of Labour's 2024 election manifesto, and also contains measures that would ban zero-hours contracts.

The legislation has been caught in parliamentary ping pong with the House of Lords.

Last month, some peers objected to the provisions around unfair dismissal, suggesting that offering workers that right from day one in the job would deter businesses from hiring.

They also opposed Labour's move to force employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees from day one, arguing that not all workers objected to having zero hours.

The Resolution Foundation said the change in the unfair dismissal period was a "sensible move that will speed up the delivery of improvements to working conditions and reduce the risk of firms being put off hiring".

It said the change "strikes the right balance between strengthening worker protections and encouraging businesses to hire."

Read more:
Budget 2025: The key points at a glance
Starmer insists Labour 'kept to our manifesto'

Nye Cominetti, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: "The UK currently has one of the longest qualifying periods for protection, which needs to come down. But scrapping it entirely would have meant lurching from one extreme to the other and putting firms off hiring new workers.

"This sensible move to a six-month qualifying period will bring the UK into line with other countries, deliver tangible improvements to working conditions, and help the Government move forward with other key aspects of the Employment Rights Bill."

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) added: "Businesses will be relieved that the government has agreed to a key amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which can pave the way to its initial acceptance.

"This agreement keeps a qualifying period that is simple, meaningful and understood within existing legislation.

"It is crucial for businesses confidence to hire and to support employment, at the same time as protecting workers."

But Andrew Griffith, the shadow business and trade secretary, said: "Rachel Reeves's benefits street budget contained little good news for businesses already struggling under the weight of last year's jobs tax.

"Inflation and unemployment are set to be higher for longer, wage costs are going up and business rate reliefs are being cut.

"It's hard to see anything in this budget which will boost confidence or stop the exodus of young people and wealth creators leaving."

This is when the nerds and boffins of Britain's fiscal thinktanks assemble to deliver their snap verdict on the chancellor's decisions.

The moment is more important than ever when, as was certainly the case this time, the budget is a big one.

So what did the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Resolution Foundation make of this year's budget?

Well, as you'd probably expect, they both fell short of distilling it into a single soundbite, but in broad terms, they both sounded somewhat positive.

Money latest: Budget blow to holidays

Yes, there were plenty of big provisos. The head of the IFS, Helen Miller, said Labour have broken their manifesto pledge not to raise National Insurance.

The Resolution Foundation argued that if only the chancellor had raised the basic rate of income tax instead of freezing personal allowances, it would have made the tax rise considerably fairer and more progressive.

And that's before one gets into the criticism of some of the other bits and pieces from the red book - the structure of the EV tax, for instance (why doesn't it try to penalise congestion?), or of the mansion tax (why not just overhaul council tax altogether?).

But for the most part, these closely-followed institutions seemed pretty supportive of this year's budget - more so, certainly, than they were last year.

Primarily, that's because while the last budget left only a very thin bit of headroom against Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules, this one was far more cautious, doubling that fiscal insurance policy to just over £21bn.

Yet that headroom is dependent on a couple of important factors. First, that the government will hold to its promises to keep spending growth constrained towards the end of the decade. Second, that it will be able to raise all the tax revenues it's promising in that year.

That, in turn, gets to a deeper issue with the budget. Most of the tough stuff has been put off to the final year of the forecast - namely 2029.

That year, the government will face a squeeze at the very same moment that Britons are all asked to pay more in taxes.

And, critically, that's the very year Labour is due to face a general election. Does it really plan to fight an election off the back of a contracting economy?

Consider, too, that for all the government's promises to get living standards growing this parliament, they are currently only forecast to rise at the slowest rate since the 1950s - save for the pandemic and energy price shock period. The economic backdrop, in other words, is hardly rosy.

Still, for the time being, the chancellor has managed to put together a budget that has bolstered her position both in her party and in her job.

Markets remain relatively sanguine - much more so than after Rachel Reeves's first budget last year - with bond yields lower today than before the event (albeit a little higher than yesterday).

Read more:
Budget takes UK into uncharted territory to allow spending spree
Main budget announcements at a glance
Reeves reveals £26bn of tax rises
Cash ISA limit slashed - but some are exempt

However, this was a complex budget. And, as with all bits of complex engineering, there remains a distinct possibility of large chunks of the budget failing to work.

But since so much of it isn't due to kick in for a few years, it may take quite a while before we find out which bits work and which, if any, don't.

The US president called 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom, part of the West Virginia guard, a "highly respected" and "magnificent person".

The other person who was shot, Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in a critical condition. Mr Trump said he is "fighting for his life".

The pair were ambushed while patrolling near the White House.

Ms Beckstrom's father had earlier told The New York Times she was unlikely to survive, and he was "holding her hand".

The suspected gunman, Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, is in a serious condition, Mr Trump told reporters.

Mr Trump described him as a "savage monster".

He drove thousands of miles from his home in Washington state to carry out the attack with a powerful Magnum revolver, according to US attorney Jeanine Pirro.

Lakanwal was injured in an exchange of fire and is now under guard in hospital.

He's said to have worked in a CIA-backed Afghan army unit before coming to the US in 2021 under a resettlement scheme to protect people from Taliban reprisals.

Lakanwal's asylum application was passed this year.

Investigators are treating the attack as terrorism and searched multiple properties on Thursday, including one linked to Lankanwal in Washington state, where the FBI seized electronic devices and interviewed relatives.

Lakanwal has a wife and five children, but police said he appeared to have acted alone.

Ms Beckstrom had been deployed since August as part of the president's plan to clamp down on what he says are high levels of crime and illegal immigration in some US cities.

Mr Trump ordered 500 extra troops into the capital after the shooting, joining about 2,200 already there.

A review of all asylum cases approved under Joe Biden's tenure has been launched as Mr Trump's administration seeks to blame his predecessor's policies.

Green cards issued to citizens of 19 countries will also be reviewed and immigration requests from Afghans have been suspended.

Read more from Sky News:
Hong Kong reels from worst disaster in modern history
Israeli forces kill two men after they appear to surrender

👉 Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts👈

"This individual - and so many others - should have never been allowed to come here," said CIA director John Ratcliffe in a statement.

He said Lakanwal had entered America in September 2021 "due to his prior work with the US government".

A Trump official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, said the suspected gunman had no known criminal history, while authorities have not yet given a motive.

The smoke catches in your throat and the emotion catches you off guard.

Seven of the eight tower blocks that make up this complex have been all but blackened. And through the shells that used to be windows, you can only imagine the horror and the panic that must have played out inside, the screams that went unanswered.

More than 30 hours after the blaze began here there was still a sense that it is far from under control. At various points during the day the flames sprung up from different windows, as if the fire has found fresh tinder.

Debris falls from the buildings periodically, ash still floats in the air.

As of Friday morning here, 94 people are now confirmed to have died.

There is no doubt the community is reeling. Along the surrounding streets hundreds came out to look on in horror, mostly in a stunned sort of silence.

Occasionally the air was pierced with the terrible cries of relatives, who had received the news they were dreading.

But much of the grief was quiet and held close, an arm around the shoulders or a quiet embrace.

Among the survivors is the Lam family, three generations of which had been living in the building for 40 years. They have lost their home and haven't heard from their neighbours.

"The alarm was all off because of the renovation of the outside. So there is no alarm to let all the people know. Many old people, elderly people, they were all having an afternoon sleep. So nobody knew," Ms Lam, whose father survived the fire, said.

"Once they know the fire has already burned down everything, and they cannot escape, they were all trapped in the house. This is a disaster, actually."

Another survivor said: "I feel sadness and hopeless and don't know what [I'm] going to do. I don't know. Cannot describe. So sad."

Hong Kong is one of the world's most densely populated cities, fire in places like this has a significantly more deadly potential.

And it also means many are displaced. Over 4,500 lived in this complex alone and are in need of emergency shelter.

The government has offered temporary accommodation to many, but the community is filling the gaps.

Armies of volunteers handed out food, water, blankets and clothes, including to those who had opted to sleep on the floor of a nearby shopping area.

One man, who wanted to sleep on the floor close to his home, said he doesn't feel supported by the government.

There is a thin line between grief and anger, and there's a feeling it's narrowing here.

Many fingers have pointed towards the construction company running extensive renovations in the complex.

A netted mesh, bamboo scaffolding and polystyrene that may have been used as part of the works have all been cited as potentially speeding the spread.

Three construction bosses have already been arrested.

But there is a sense that distrust of the authorities more broadly runs deep.

"It is very serious and people are starting to feel furious about the construction company and the construction materials," one woman said.

"There are so many layers of anger among the people. People feel that every party should take responsibility."

Read more:
At least 83 dead as police make arrests over fire
Almost 280 people missing as blaze engulfs flats

Everyone we spoke to wanted to wear a mask to avoid being targeted, with volunteers actively encouraging the masks, and many hinted that the system shoulders its share of responsibility for what happened.

This fire is already the worst disaster in the modern history of Hong Kong; many of the victims are elderly and many will struggle to rebuild.

There will many days of pain to come, but many days of questions too.

Palestinians said the killings, which were captured on video and shown on two Arab TV channels, were carried out "in cold blood".

In the video, the men were seen exiting a building and lying on the ground in front of Israeli forces in the northern West Bank city of Jenin.

Both men lifted their T-shirts and held their hands in the air, apparently to show they were not carrying weapons or explosives.

The soldiers then appeared to order the men back inside the building before they were shot.

A Reuters journalist in the area saw the men leave the building, appearing to surrender, and later, after hearing shots fired, saw Israeli forces standing near what appeared to be a lifeless body.

The men were identified as al Muntasir Abdullah, 26, and Yousef Asasa, 37, by Palestinian authorities.

What has Israel said about the incident?

A joint statement between the Israeli Defence Forces and Israeli police said: "Earlier this evening (Thursday), during an Israel Border Police and IDF operation in the area of Jenin, the forces operated to apprehend wanted individuals who had carried out terror activities, including hurling explosives and firing at security forces.

"The wanted individuals were affiliated with a terror network in the area of Jenin.

"The forces entered the area, enclosed the structure in which the suspects were located, and initiated a surrender procedure that lasted several hours. Following the use of engineering tools on the structure, the two suspects exited.

"Following their exit, fire was directed toward the suspects.

"The incident is under review by the commanders on the ground, and will be transferred to the relevant professional bodies."

Israel's far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the military and police unit involved in the shooting had his "full backing".

"The fighters acted exactly as expected of them - terrorists should die!" he wrote on X.

'An outright extrajudicial killing'

But Palestinians and human rights groups say Israeli investigations in such incidents yield few results, with Israeli troops rarely prosecuted.

The Palestinian prime minister's office in Ramallah also accused Israel of executing the men "in cold blood", calling the shooting "an outright extrajudicial killing in blatant violation of international humanitarian law".

Yuli Novak, the executive director of B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, said: "The execution documented today is the result of an accelerated process of dehumanisation of Palestinians and the complete abandonment of their lives by the Israeli regime.

"In Israel, there is no mechanism that acts to stop the killing of Palestinians or is capable of prosecuting those responsible."

Read more from Sky News:
Hong Kongers reel from fire disaster
National Guard trooper shot in DC dies

Israel's military has scaled up its military operations in the West Bank since the October 7 Hamas attack, which triggered the war in Gaza.

Since October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, according to B'Tselem, which said the perpetrators were "granted full impunity by Israel".