this is bbc news. the headlines at apm: theresa may under pressure over britain's response to donald trump's travel ban. boris johnson faces mps in the commons in the next hour. —— in the next 15 minutes. a petition to stop president trump's state visit to the uk gathers more than 1 million signatures, but downing street says it will still go ahead. despite the protests, president trump defends his action banning people from seven muslim—majority countries — saying there are a lot of "bad dudes" out there. in the next hour: six people, including two former hbos bankers, have been found guilty of bribery and fraud. the scam cost the bank's business customers and shareholders hundreds of millions of pounds. six people are shot dead in a terror attack at a mosque in quebec. two people are arrested. good afternoon, and
welcome to bbc news. more thani million people have signed a petition calling on the government to cancel a planned state visit to the uk by president trump. it follows his temporary ban on visitors from seven, predominantly muslim, countries from entering the usa. labour leaderjeremy corbyn said the visit should be postponed. but downing street said that would "undo everything" achieved in mrs may's recent visit to washington. here's our political correspondent, iain watson. chanting: no fascist usa! the demonstrations in america against president trump's imposition of a temporary travel ban are likely to be repeated here, with protests planned outside downing street later today and in other uk cities. although the foreign office have clarified that british citizens are exempt from the ban, the foreign secretary has been under pressure to say why it took so long to get that clarification. i'll be talking to you in the house of commons. that's the place.
house of commons — be there! this conservative mp was born in iraq, one of the seven countries which are subject to president trump's travel ban. he's pleased with confirmation now that, as a british citizen, he'll be able to visit the usa. but he's still opposed to the policy. clearly, the foreign secretary had worked throughout sunday and into the night, talking directly to the white house, was my understanding, as did the team at number ten, and i applaud them for the work they did, certainly on behalf of families like mine. i mean, the anguish we suffered over the last 72 hours has been horrific. there are millions of people in the uk and in the rest of europe who are dual nationals, or originally nationals of those countries, who will be worried. and now, more thani million people have signed an online petition calling for president trump's planned state visit to the uk to be called off. they say it could embarrass the queen. that's the second highest number of signatories since the current policy on petitions was introduced. and the numbers are still rising. but it's worth noting in fifth place is a petition backing a policy similar to donald trump's,
calling for an uk immigration ban until isis is defeated. when a petition gets more than 100,000 signatures, mps must consider it for debate. a decision on that will be taken tomorrow, but parliamentary sources are stressing it would be inconceivable if president trump's planned visit wasn't discussed here at westminster. now, even if a majority of mps decided they wanted that visit scrapped, they couldn't rescind an invitation from buckingham palace and downing street, but they could embarrass the prime minister. prime minister, should president trump's state visit go ahead? she was tight—lipped today, but downing street have made it clear it would be a populist gesture to scrap president trump's invitation, and they don't intend to do so. but this former labour leader urged her to rethink. what i believe is that this state visit can't go ahead, given the outrage, the impact on britain, and the impact on the world, frankly, of president trump's muslim ban. and a former lib dem leader agreed.
yeah, i think the state visit, or the offer of a state visit, was far too premature. and i think a lot of people, i totally understand why thousands of people are signing petitions, because they feel queasy that the red carpet and the full sort of barrage of royal regalia is being rolled out for a man, who, with each passing hour, seems to behave in an ever more erratic, unpredictable and divisive way. but president trump's approach met with the approval of the first british politician to have met him after his election. what has happened here, is the countries upon which trump has put a temporary travel ban, while they work out how they are going to put extreme vetting in place, that list was drawn up by the 0bama administration. what was a diplomatic success now looks like a political difficulty. getting close to the new us administration could be good for the post—brexit economy, but not necessarily for theresa may's domestic popularity. iain watson, bbc news.
let's just show you the house of commons. we are waiting that statement from the foreign secretary, borisjohnson. statement from the foreign secretary, boris johnson. he statement from the foreign secretary, borisjohnson. he doesn't look like he has taken up his position on the front page. but as soon as he gets up to speak, we will ta ke soon as he gets up to speak, we will take you there. president trump says only 109 people out of more than 300,000 were detained at immigration for questioning over the weekend, and that the problems at airports were caused by computer issues and protestors, not his travel ban. protests have continued across america, and many more are being planned here in the uk this evening in around 30 towns and cities. this report from daniel boettcher. this is how divisive the issue has become — shouted arguments between opponents of donald trump's travel ban and those supporting it. this protest was in portland, but they have continued in many us cities, and at several airports, where there is still confusion about how the president's order should be implemented. there have also been a number
of legal challenges. protection of the nation from foreign terrorists. the executive order suspends the entry of nationals from seven muslim—majority countries. it stops the us refugee programme for four months, and there's an indefinite ban on all syrian refugees. that's a concern for abdul shata, a refugee from homs, who has settled in california. he had hoped that his wider family could be reunited, but fears that won't happen now. translation: we hope things go back to how they were, and that these orders are eased, because our people have suffered. our people are not trouble makers, and there's nothing wrong with us, it's just that history has dealt us a difficult hand. there have been protests against the policy in a number of countries. here, students in the philippines. and the iraqi parliament has voted to asked its government to retaliate against the us. while canada has offered to give temporary residency to people stranded in the country by the ban.
we will continue to ensure that our immigration system is about compassion, efficiency and economic opportunity, and the protection of the health, safety and security of canadians. the un high commissionerfor human rights, zeid ra'ad al hussein. said in a tweet that discrimination on nationality alone was forbidden under human rights law. he added that the us ban is also mean—spirited, and wastes resources needed for proper counterterrorism. here, a former mi6 head of counterterrorism said the measures could do more harm than good. this sort of ban on travel makes a huge impact around the world, and ratherfeeds the narrative of extremist islamist terrorists, that the americans and all the allies are fundamentally against us because of our religion. but president trump's aides insist this is not about religion, but about tackling terrorism, and that the order is an interim measure while new policies are drawn up.
his supporters argue it is necessary. whatever needs to be done has to be done, and this is for the safety of everybody. donald trump said this is temporary, so i trust him. his number one job is to protect the american people, and i think he's doing it. we live in a country of democracy, and if the majority of the people feel they are threatened and they want to have things in place, then we should be able to have things in place. donald trump said only 109 out of 325,000 people were detained and held for questioning following his executive order, and tweeted that the homeland security secretaryjohn kelly said all was going well with very few problems. joining me via webcam from philadelphia is michaeljohns, a former white house speech writer to george h w bush and co—founder of the grassroots conservative organisation the national tea party movement. do you agree with the white house
that it's all going very well?|j don't that it's all going very well?” don't believe you would roll something out like this of this magnitude without some complicating factors. but absolutely it was the right decision that president trump made. i think you did with the urgency that was required. it would be great in the real world if you could give the people of the world and of these seven nations two or three weeks' notice, but that clearly contradicts the underlying motivation behind this, and that is to discourage terrorists from entering the united states. they simply would exploit such an advanced amount of notice. initially, the seven nations that have been targeted, whilst not being exactly worded this way, clearly showed that this is a concern about isas related —— isis related terrorism. they are countries that have had to some degree isis connections or isis aligned
organisations. all of whom, it is important to note, have promised that they would utilise american refugee programme and american immigration programmes and visas to infiltrate our country for the purpose of terrorism. complicated factors with the phrase i think you use. factors with the phrase i think you use. does that include those trying to visit those families, reunited with those families, being stranded at airports? does it also conclude the worldwide condemnation of this particular policy? i don't think there is a worldwide condemnation. i think the voices on that side of very loud and well funded by liberal leagues around the world. but if you look at the us polling on this, the united states voters overwhelmingly support the steps. they wanted them put in place longer go. had they been put in place longer go, it would have been beneficialfor the purposes of protection of our country, the same is the eu, particularly in france, where
terrorist attacks could have been prevented had such policies been enacted there. i think you are seeing in the us and around the world, particularly in europe with the brexit vote and other political waves, a great degree of very justifiable concern about isis and other terrorist threats to these countries, and willingness to do just what is common sense, and that is to put in place policies that can only prevent people of ill will from entering our country is. with the protests in the united states, i mean, it's clear at the moment this isa mean, it's clear at the moment this is a temporary policy. but what will happen over the next 90 days to decide whether it remains temporary or not? it is a temporary policy. it is designed to give the administration the time i believe that it needs to come up with, you know, hopefully a solution to what isa know, hopefully a solution to what is a very complex problem. it is, how do you bet people entering the
united states from these countries who are in themselves do not have developed documentation, do not have means of vetting themselves, don't have the tikrit close relationships with the united states. that is kind of the way it designs to do —— particularly close relationships. furthermore, this is really the most important point, whatever inconveniences are caused to foreigners from these seven designated countries, and whatever that represents, is hugely offset by the security needs and actually the mandate to the president to protect our country from such terrorist threat. for me, it's not even a close call. and yet, the vast majority of those involved in the 9/11 attack were from a country that was not even on this list? yes, that is 16 years ago, we ring 2017 right now. that's not to say that al-qaeda is not a threat, it is. and by the way, it is possible, and the order did prevent the president to expand
the list of countries should that be preceded to be in our interest. but i think this is predominantly focused on preventing isis attacks on the us mainland and particularly so, since our intelligence services and many reports have come out from them that suggests that they are promising, not threatening, promising, not threatening, promising, to use us immigration, us visas, are unregulated system to in full trait the us for the purposes of terrorist attacks. so it is absolutely imperative the us take proper steps to prevent that from occurring. i think from pass done really a n occurring. i think from pass done really an exceptional first step here. sorry to interrupt, michael. the difficulty with that is, there are countries, one thinks of iran, iraq, syria, where there are those who are fighting is, and couldn't be counter—productive to countries like that but are now banned, in effect? no, i don't believe so. i think that
if these countries should fully understand the basis on the decision that has been made here, if there is any confusion about it, i'm sure, you know, this administration will make an effort of explaining it, and ultimately if they can't understand that then they don't understand the magnitude of the threat that is represented. really the primary responsibility of the president, we decided huge election, as i think the whole world knows, i've exactly this issue, is whether we put the interests of foreigners over those of americans. and this is a step that places american security first and foremost. it does, undeniably and foremost. it does, undeniably and unfortunately, represent modest inconveniences to people that are well—intentioned, and there are many who while, from those countries. and i think it is about affording an opportunity to have workarounds in this case. for instance, among the dozens that were delayed
predominantly atjfk airport in new york city yesterday, all of them have since been released after a modest delay, once their purposes was sort of understood. michael, very quickly. he has been in thejob a week. how do you think donald trump will feel it has gone?” a week. how do you think donald trump will feel it has gone? i can't imagine it could have gone any better. you judge a president by two things. one is too early to tell, thatis, things. one is too early to tell, that is, what is the result of his policies. many of us believe it is going to be productive for the us economy and us security and the us generally. the other thing is, is the president keeping his promises that he made the american people? and from showed throughout the last week but promises that he made promises that he executed on. he is keeping his bond with the american people. so i couldn't be more pleased with the work he has done so far. thank you, michael. the headlines on bbc news:.
theresa may under pressure over britain's response to donald trump's travel ban. there is a petition for his state visit to be cancelled. it gets over 1 million signatures. borisjohnson faces 1 million signatures. borisjohnson fa ces m ps 1 million signatures. borisjohnson faces mps in the commons shortly. despite the protests, president trump defends his action banning people from seven muslim—majority countries — saying there are a lot of "bad dudes" out there. six people, including two former hbos bankers, have been found guilty of bribery and fraud. the scam cost the bank's business customers and shareholders hundreds of millions of pounds. and in sport as mike the the former tea m and in sport as mike the the former team sky coach who delivered a mystery package to sir bradley wiggins has been invited by mps to give evidence at eight doping inquirer. crystal palace have brought patrick van aanholt from sunderland, with the manager hoping he makes an immediate impact in theirfight against he makes an immediate impact in their fight against relegation from their fight against relegation from the premier league. the six nations
tv executives that there will be no relegation from the tournament in the short to medium term —— six nations executives. nicola sturgeon has won that time is running out to reach a compromise with the uk. what the meeting did today was agreed to intensify the work of considering proposals from the scottish government and the other devolved penetration is ahead of the triggering of article 50. i was pleased with the prime minister that we have to see a step change in the engagement of the uk government and in the willingness to substantively compromise in order to convince me that they are serious
about listening to scotland. the welsh first minister carwynjones gave this response to the meeting. the prime minister herself said today, this isn't a talking shop. i hold her to that decision. it is important that we are part of the pi’ocess, important that we are part of the process, sure, but also part of the negotiation. the uk doesn't exist, everything is either european all welsh from our perspective. we have to make sure that wales's interests are protected as we leave the eu. five defendants in a trial for massive fraud, corruption and money—laundering by employees of hbos and a firm of consultants have been found guilty. southwark crown court heard that they squandered the profits on luxury holidays, designer watches and prostitutes. 0ur economics correspondent andy verity has been following the case. southwark crown court heard that the perks were rewarded for an hbos manager in return for businesses. chauffeur—driven bentleys at no charge, ferraris, trips to vegas, brown envelopes stuffed with cash, gratis.
just a few of the perks of being a corrupt manager at hbos, or one of those bribing him. and all paid for by the bank and its business customers. this businessman, michael bancroft, arranged prostitute and other favours for an hbos bank manager, seen here on the left, lynden scourfield. borisjohnson is boris johnson is making borisjohnson is making a statement ona borisjohnson is making a statement on a proposed state visit by donald trump. us immigration policy... in view of the understandable concern and uncertainty, it may be helpful of fire described for the house the consequences for british citizens and dual nationals of the executive order issued last friday. let me begin by saying that this is not uk policy, this is not our policy, nor is ita policy, this is not our policy, nor is it a measure that this government would consider. i've already made clear our anxiety about measures that discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that our divisive and wrong. —— that our
divisive. 0n the 27th of president trump issued an executive order banning the citizens of seven countries from entering the united states. those countries are syria, iraq, iran, somalia, libya and sudan. the order makes clear that no us visas will be issued to citizens of those states and anyone who already has a wiese will be denied entry. the immigration policy of the united states is of course a matter for the government of the united states. but on the face of it, this executive order has consequences. british citizens. for that reason, i spoke yesterday to the us administration, and my honourable friend the home secretary has today spoken to general kelly, the secretary of homeland security. i'm able to provide the following clarification. the general principle
is that all british passport holders remain welcome to travel to the us. we have received assurances from the us embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any british passport holder, irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport. in any case, the executive order is a temporary measure intended to last for 90 days until the us system has added new security precautions. this is of course a highly controversial policy, which has caused unease. and i repeat that this is not an approach that this government would take. but let me conclude, but let me conclude by
reminding the house of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states, in defence, intelligence, which i'm sure they appreciate and understand on that side. on defence, intelligence and security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world. that relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. the prime minister's highly successful visit to the white house last week underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance. where we have differences with the united states, we will not wailfrom expressing with the united states, we will not wail from expressing them. with the united states, we will not wailfrom expressing them. as i have done today... order, order. let me just say to the house, but it is obvious there is huge interest in this matter, which colleagues can rely upon me to accommodate. i understand the strength of feeling,
but the foreign secretary's statement, and indeed upcoming his answers to questions, must be heard. foreign secretary. where we have differences with the us we will not hesitate to express them, as i have done today. if they were listening, if the members opposite were listening, as the prime minister did yesterday, as she did indeed in her excellent speech in philadelphia last week. but we will also, we also, repeat, are resolved to work alongside the trump administration in the mutual interest of both our countries. by commend this statement to the house. emily forrest break. —— emily thornbury. mr speaker, let me start by saying this. i'm sure the whole house will want to join me in expressing our sorrow on last night's gun attack at the canadian mosque which left six dead and eight injured. they were all victims of
hate, and we are under a duty disband up to hate whenever and in whatever form it to disband up to hate whenever and in whateverform it to be is. i thank the foreign secretary for the advice of his, the advanced site of his statement. i thought there were a few pa g es statement. i thought there were a few pages missing, but apparently not. i hope you will allow me to ask some questions on details that were missing from this statement and also to ask about his timing. first, on the detail. as he knows, there are thousands of people in britain who live here on a permanent basis but are also nationals of the seven listed countries, and they have no dual citizenship. many of them are here with indefinitely to remain having fled persecution or war. can the secretary of state confirm, based on what he has said today, that thousands of british residents are now barred from travelling to the united states? people like a doctor, an iranian national living and working in glasgow, who won friday was told she was not allowed to fly home from costa rica because she was going to need to change
planes on new york? similarly, if a somali national with a temporary us theseis somali national with a temporary us these is currently in the uk visiting theirfamily, these is currently in the uk visiting their family, and these is currently in the uk visiting theirfamily, and he confirmed that they cannot return to the us under these rules? turning now to the timing of this announcement, this order was issued at 945 announcement, this order was issued at 9115 on friday, uk time. it then took number ten until midnight on saturday, a full 27 hours later, to say that they would consider the impact on uk nationals. it then took the prime minister until sunday morning to tell the foreign secretary to telephone the white house. and it took him until midday on sunday to call the travel ban divisive and wrong. that is 38 hours, 38 hours, mr >> doug:, to have the courage to say what ever be else was saying on friday night. and finally, 46 hours after the affective order we got clarification that uk nationals and dual nationals would not be affected. if this was
because the wheels in washington we re because the wheels in washington were slow to turn, it might be understandable. but look at canada. they were immediately in touch on saturday with their american counterparts, and by that evening they had secured the travel rights of canadian nationals, a full 17 hours before we had so can i ask of the liquid real estate, canada is supposed to be five hours behind the uk, so why would a day ahead of us when it came to this result? and finally, a point on timing. the order was signed barely an hour or two after the prime minister had left the white house. can he tell us, in their discussions about terrorism and security, was this imminent or dimension? because i don't know what's worse, that the president would have such little respect for the prime minister that he wouldn't think of telling her, or that he did and that she didn't think it sounded wrong. if it was
the first, it would hardly be a surprise. but if it was the latter, then we really do have a problem, mr speaker. because when it comes to human rights, women's rights, torture and the treatment of minorities, president trump is already descending down a very dangerous slope. and when that happens, we need a prime minister who is prepared to tell him to stop, not one who simply proffers her hand and silently helps them along. well, mr speaker, i listened very carefully to the most substantial point the honourable lady had to make was a particular case of a glaswegian doctor. and i appreciate that there will be all sorts of cases, particularly difficult cases, heartbreaking cases, experience in a lot of frustration as a result of this measure, which i repeat because perhaps members didn't follow first time, this is not the policy of her majesty is government, it is the policy promoted elsewhere. what we
will do, what we will do is make sure that week, all our diplomatic network is put the servers on people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures. but as i say, because of the energetic action of this government, we now have, by the prime minister and my right honourable friend the home secretary, we have an exemption for uk passport holders whetherjorn nationals or otherwise. and i think most fair—minded people would say that that actually showed the advantages of working closely with the trump administration. 0n the advantages of having a relationship that enables us to get our point across, and to get the vital protections for uk passport holders that they need. and i may say that the approach taken by the party
opposite, pointlessly to demonise the drop administration, would have achieved the very opposite —— the trump administration. crispin blunt. does the foreign secretary welcome thejoint statement by does the foreign secretary welcome the joint statement by senatorsjohn mccain and lindsey graham expressing their beer that this is executive order would be a self—inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism —— bearthe? wound in the fight against terrorism -- bear the? i'm gratefulto my honourable friend. i think the interventions of the senators show is that this is a subject for lively debate on capitol hill, as it is here in this house. and i repeat that this is something that we do not support, it's not a policy that we agree with, and it's clear from what my right honourable friend says that there are others in the us you don't agree either. thank you, i
thank the foreign secretary for advanced sight of his statement. without a thought to the context on holocaust memorial day, president trump issued an executive order to ban people from seven muslim countries from entering the usa, including, andi countries from entering the usa, including, and i quote, there is bad dudes, who are actual victims of violence. this action is inhumane, racist and a moral. and i welcome the fact, mr speaker, that this house is treating the threat posed by president trump with the seriousness it deserves. we also on these benches would like to pay tribute to the strong statements that have been made on this issue by scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, and welcome the work that has already been done by so many, you can learn some lessons from scotland's first minister. the work that has been done by so many on the ground in scotland, particularly women for independence, who provided moral and practical support for
those who have been unjustly affected by this despicable action. cani affected by this despicable action. can i ask the foreign secretary, given the prime minister's blossoming and frank relationship with president trump, did she know in advance that the president was to issue this order, which is a concern for many of our citizens? and does she agree with senior national security experts in the us and elsewhere that this will have national security implications for the uk, given that the us are has now adopted daesh's false narrative that theirs is a conflict between the west and islam? this government needs to show global leadership. where is it? as the honourable lady will know when it comes to tackling the scourge when it comes to tackling the scourge of daesh and she is right, this country is the second biggest contributor to military action in strikes against daesh in iraq and in
syria and we continue to be the second biggest donor to the humanitarian crisis in that region and everybody in this house should be incredibly proud of the leadership that the uk is showing in that respect. i have already made my views about this, i don't see, it is up views about this, i don't see, it is up to members of the house of commons if they wish to exhaust the denunciation of this policy, i have made my position clear. i made it clear yesterday. i said it was wrong to, isaid clear yesterday. i said it was wrong to, i said it was wrong to prom gate policies that stigmatise policies on the basis of their nationality aye believe that profoundly. what we have done in the last few days is to intercede on behalf of the uk nationals which is ourjob and uk passport holders and we have secured very important protections for them.
mrtrump is very important protections for them. mr trump is what we might call a known unknown. he will do unpredictable things and abandon know position. he will learn as he goes along and what we have to remember is that our security and that europe depends on the atlantic alliance. does my right honourable friend agree that there must be no question of our refuse to go welcome him to these shores in the hope of setting him along the right path as soon as setting him along the right path as soon as possible to our mutual benefit? well, my right honourable friend is entirely right in the sense that the prime minister, succeeded the other day in getting her message across about the north atla ntic her message across about the north atlantic alliance and about nato and president trump affirmed very strongly his commitment to that
alliance. it is vital for our security, particularly the article 5 guarantee and the new president is, i think, very much in the right place on that and it is totally right, he said so. it is totally right, he said so. it is totally right, of course, that the in—coming president of our closest and most important ally should be accorded the honour of a state visit that is supported by this government and the invitation has been extended by her majesty the queen quite properly. thank you, mr speaker. this is not just about the impact on british citizens. 0ne just about the impact on british citizens. one of our closest allies has chose tonne ban refugees and target muslims and all he can say is that well, it wouldn't be our policy. that is not good enough. has
he urged the us administration to lift this order to help refugees and to stop targeting muslims? this order was signed on holocaust memorial day for the sake of history. for heaven's sake have the guts to speak out. as i say, it is open to mps opposite and all sides of the house to come forward with expressions of outrage about the presidential executive order. i have made, i have made my views — and they are entitled to it. i share, i share, the widespread disquiet and i have made my views absolutely clear. i have said that it is divisive. i have said that it's wrong and i've said that it stigmatises people on grounds of their nationality, but what i will not do, what i will not do, which is what i think the party opposite would do is disengage from
conversations with our american friends and partners in such a way as to do material damage to the interests of uk citizens. what we have secured, are important protections for people in this country and that is the job of this government. given our new—found closeness with the trump administration, what plans does my right honourable friend have to try and persuade the administration after the 90 days to abandon what to many is a despicable and immoral policy? and would my right honourable friend agree in para phrasing a par wiser president, john f kennedy, that those that ride on the back of a tiger end up inside it. i'm sure that the words of the right
honourable gentleman will be heard in washington. but all i can say is we will continue mr speaker to engage with the administration, to make our points about the interests of uk nationals and of course, and of uk nationals and of course, and of course, wait for it, to convey our feelings about the global con certificate nation that this measure has caused. could the foreign secretary clarify what would be the position for an iraqi national resident in the united kingdom whose child is working in the united states and is a dual british and iraqi citizen in the event that that child died? would her mother be able to travel from london to the united states to bury her daughter under the current us arrangements and if not, would he agree with me that that would be quite simply inhuman and outrageous? yes, of course, it is possible to
create all sorts of hypothetical situations which are yet more outrageous, but the answer, as far asi outrageous, but the answer, as far as i understand, he will appreciate it is for the us to explain this aspect of their policy. the answer is that such a case would be treated very expeditiously and particular arrangements would be put in place to ensure that that person was able to ensure that that person was able to travel to the us. the speaker: i will do my best to accommodate the extensive interest this this subject. can i point out that members who toddled into the chamber after the foreign secretary's statement had begun should not be standing. it is in defiance of the conventions of the place and i'm sure they wouldn't be so place and i'm sure they wouldn't be so unreasonable to think that they would have a right to be called because that would be perverse and i feel they wouldn't behave in a perverse way i'm sure. given that
the united states congress and the courts, as well as the president and diplomacy will play a part in arriving at a solution over this question, does my right honourable friend accept there is a universal threat from jihadists and europol itself as an example have estimated that up to 5,000 jihadists have come over from several of these countries and that furthermore, we should also remember the victims of 9/11 in new york, 7/7 in london, paris, brussels and berlin, not to mention lee rigby? we understand the threat from jihadists at home and abroad and that's why it is vital we work with our american friends to combat that threat. will the foreign secretary just for a moment try to recall along with me as i hid underneath
the stairs when two fascist dictators were raining bombs on towns and cities in britain. now, this government is hand—in—hand with other fascist trump and what i say to him — do the decent thing and ban the visit. this man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of nelson mandela. well, i hesitate to say it, but the honourable gentlemen's memory was at fault when he thinks that musaleni rained bombs on this country. when president 0bama impose add similar ban ona president 0bama impose add similar ban on a single country in 2011, american democracy ensured it did not last and other action was taken. can't we rely on american democracy
this time to do the right thing and ta ke this time to do the right thing and take the right moral pose and isn't it british ministers jobs to speak for british policy? my for british policy? my right honourable friend is right and indeed, the memberfor reigate has pointed out that there is disquiet on capitol hill and i have no doubt that the american political system will help to introduce the recognise sit balances in the end. it is ourjob to intervene now and get the best deal we can for uk nationals. in november 1938 a then conservative government prepared a bill that led to the chinter transport that transported jewish refugee children to this country. doesn't the secretary of state realise that in making his statement he should uphold the geneva convention. he has let the country down and his job down. i think the honourable member
is taking sa ntomy down. i think the honourable member is taking santomy to a new height. most fair minded people would say we have been clear with our friends in america that we don't agree with their policy. but we've worked with them to get the best possible outcome for uk nationals and dual nationals, but we have also made clear to the american administration as i'm sure he would approve of, the widespread con certificate nation thatis widespread con certificate nation that is felt by individuals such as him around the world. cani him around the world. can i congratulate the foreign secretary in condemning america's policy which on any standards is com pletely policy which on any standards is completely unjustified. i am also like, many of us, delighted that sir mo farah is going to be able to go home and see his wife and his children. would the foreign secretary agree with the words of sirmo farah
secretary agree with the words of sir mo farah when he described this policy as being based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance?” savour the rare congratulations from my honourable friend on any matter, whatever, but i'm delighted to, of course, particularly delight that had sir mo course, particularly delight that had sirmo farah course, particularly delight that had sir mo farah is able to continue to go back to the united states where, of course, he trains and is able to get fit to win the many medals that he does. the foreign secretary know that is this policy is counter productive, immoral and wrong. his attitude and his approach has been to get an exception for uk citizens from it. and invite the perpetrator to a full state visit. that doesn't seem the condemnation that this house would deserve. he should make it clear in
no uncertain terms that this kind of discrimination is counter productive, wrong and immoral. the policy is counter productive, immoral and wrong, i said it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. if anybody things there is a difference between our positions i would ask them to write to me and explain! i commend the foreign secretary on the work he did through sunday and into the night to ensure that britons have safe travel to the united states of america. can i further ask him whether he had clarification from the administration that they have now updated the advice to their embarrassies because there is confusion that some embassies are turning dual nationals away and not allowing them to enter the united states of america. i'm thrilled that neither my honourable friend with whom i've travelled many times and
nor sir mo whom i've travelled many times and nor sirmo farah whom i've travelled many times and nor sir mo farah will be affected by this presidential order and i can confirm that the embassy advice has been updated mr speaker as we have been updated mr speaker as we have been speaking. most of us condemns xenophobia without hesitation and we reject racism almost by instinct. the prime minister's duty, as the honourable gentleman will know is to the safety and the security of everybody in this country to protect their rights and freedoms. that's what has been achieved by the agreement that we have struck and he will also know that she was first out of the box, very early out of the box in saying she disagreed with this policy. thank you, mr speaker. may i congratulate my right honourable friend on making those words in our
passport allowing her majesties subjects to travel unhindered. can i encourage him to defend our interests as he is doing and not seek to tell america how to run itself? i'm grateful to my honourable friend. i am not seeking to defend or indeed to explicate or to defend or indeed to explicate or to rationalise in anyway the policy of the presidential executive order. i merely seek to explain how it may affect uk nationals, duals and what we have done to mitigate the effects of that executive order. 0n of that executive order. on friday, it was holocaust memorial day and the prime minister told us that our commitment to remembering the holocaust is and i quote, "about more than words." she said it is about standing up to prejudice
wherever it is found today. why then on saturday was the prime minister unable to adhere to her own call to action? the prime minister made it clear she did not agree with the policy. i have made it clear and i made it clear several times now in the course of these proceedings that i think that the policy is entirely a matter for the united states, think that the policy is entirely a matterfor the united states, but it is my view that it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. the foreign secretary is to be congratulated upon working to protect the rights of british nationals, but will he also that he is not telling an ally to run their own country, to remind them in calm and firm terms that our shared relationship is based upon a mutual respect for the rule of law both national and international. and that persisting in this policy, does america no good in that regard at all. i complete agree with my right
honourable friend and we are more likely as a nation to get a hearing in respect of these vital issues if we treat our partners, our friends and partners, our long—standing friends and partners with the respect they deserve. it seems that fa ke respect they deserve. it seems that fake news has come to the house of commons with avengeance. the foreign secretary stood up to say that our prime minister was one of the first out of the blocks to condemn the words from president trump. she was not, it was 38 hours and her failure was something that shamed this whole country. i'm proud that more people in my constituency have signed that petition to stop this state visit than any other because they recognise that our prime minister has been involved, not in diplomacy, but in complicit in tyranny, what does he say? well, say to the height honourable lady that per constituents are at liberty to sign the petition and they are at liberty to express their
views, i have expressed my views about this measure, but it would be about this measure, but it would be a good thing if the visit went away because the relationship between the united states and the uk is important and we're going to keep that relationship going. may i strongly agree with the foreign secretary of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states? but would he agree with me that whatever others may do, refugees arriving in this country will be dealt with, with patience, courtesy and respect. i'm very grateful to my honourable friend. i would i'm very grateful to my honourable friend. iwould remind him that i'm very grateful to my honourable friend. i would remind him that it was winston churchill who took a strong view that a country should be able to control its own borders and
its own i will gration policies. —— immigration policies.” its own i will gration policies. -- immigration policies. i don't think the foreign secretary understands, mr speaker how so many people in this country feel such co nte m pt people in this country feel such contempt for what trump has done, but can i clarify what he said earlier? if indeed this visit of this wretched man, bigoted man is going to take place, can we be reassured that under no circumstances will he address parliament in westminster hall? that in itself would be a disgrace. i'm sure that the mood of the chamber of the house of commons would be reflected in all discussions about how the visit is to go ahead, but i think, we should bearin to go ahead, but i think, we should bear in mind that he is the elected head of state of our closest and most important ally and there is absolutely no reason why he should not be accorded a state visit and
every reason why he should. well, certainly if we got the queen to have tea with the president of china i don't see why she shouldn't have tea with the president of america. i thought our security depended on this special relationship and in those terms and in terms of the future trade deal, was the visit of prime minister not an absolute triumph? and isn't the first fruit of this special relationship the foreign secretary has ensured the rights of british citizens?” foreign secretary has ensured the rights of british citizens? i must say that i agree with my right honourable friend about the prime minister's visit. i do think it was a great success and they kindled an important relationship and the parallels that were drawn extensively in the us between ronald reagan and margaret thatcher and
between our prime minister and the new american president were, i think, very apt and we can look forward to a new era of stability and security working together with the us. mr speaker, the british embassy in the united states has a very important page on the website where it shows the lists of presidential visits to the united kingdom. can the foreign secretary confirm that george w bush was president for more than two years before he made a state visit, barack 0bama was president for more than two years and that many previous presidents didn't have state visits at all, although they did visit this country in their duties. why on earth has teresa the appeaser got him here within a few months? the speaker: order. order. the honourable, the honourable gentleman
will have hear the response to what he said, but my reaction is that the matter, order. the matter is one of taste rather than of order. i certainly don't need any help from the honourable gentleman who wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to start. the foreign secretary. mr speaker, mayi where to start. the foreign secretary. mr speaker, may i say with your goodance therefore that i do find it distasteful to make comparisons between the elected leader of a great democracy, the elected leader of a great democracy and 1930s ti rants. i think it is inappropriate. as for the protocol... as for the protocol, the exact protocol of when the visit should take place, that's something about which obviously the honourable gentleman cares deeply. i can't give him any guidance about that. that's
a protocol matter. can i offer the foreign secretary my commiserations at being sent out to bat on a very sticky wicket? would he perhaps tell the house that when he intervened in washington, was it through the state department or the president's son—in—law? i'm grateful to my honourable friend for that ingenious question. i'm sure the house will appreciate we have very good relations at all levels now with the us government, my honourable friend the home secretary herself has had an excellent conversation today with general kelly, of the home security department, confirming the very important exceptions that we have achieved for uk national and for dual nationals. mr speaker the, the
foreign secretary doesn't like outrage so does he understand the dismay felt by millions of britons at the prime minister's failure to condemn immediately and unequivocally trump's muslim ban and this ban may have increased the risk to britain by the seven countries by the ban? i think i'm going to have to repeat what i said already 15 times... studio: the foreign secretary, boris johnson, facing questions from mps over the government's response to the us travel ban imposed by donald trump. mrjohnson telling the commons that british travellers would not be affected by the restrictions. some pictures in from dublin, the prime minister, theresa may, has arrived there for a meeting with enda kenny on brexit. this is her first visit to ireland since she was appointed prime minister. we will be giving you the details of that
meeting and any thoughts that come from it throughout the evening here, of course, on bbc news. now, a look at weather with darren. a lot of cloud across the uk. this was a fairly typical picture across the south and the south—west. misty grey skies in swannage in dorset. there has been some sunshine, that's been across parts of scotland, away from some patches of fog and for a while, we have had a few breaks across northern england too. and quite a difference in temperatures in the sunshine compared with the low cloud that we've got in the south—west. with that low cloud, some rain and drizzle which has been edging eastwards and it will continue through the course of the night. we will see some more substantial rain, heavier rain arriving in northern ireland, into western scotland later on in the night. a lot of low cloud and hill fog too and not too cold,
but earlier on in scotland and north—east england, it will be rather chilly, but temperatures probably tend to rise a touch as we head towards the end of the night and into the morning then, we start with outbreaks of rain across western scotland and northern ireland. indeed, quite a wet start in northern ireland. especially across the eastern side of the country. elsewhere, dribs and drabs of rain, but cloud and low cloud too. if you're travelling over the pennines, there will be hill fog around and a lot of low cloud with the mild air that we've got across the mild air that we've got across the south—west of england and wales. here we've got colder air hanging on and a wind picking up. gusty winds in scotland. clearing away from northern ireland. some late sunshine, but again cloudy day for england and wales, a bit of rain and drizzle from time to time. chilly feel across some eastern parts of england and scotland, but the temperatures could get make double figures. it is the return of the premier league on tuesday. we've got
a couple of matches there just a selection, cloudy skies, every chance of seeing rain or drizzle, but not particularly cold. as we head into wednesday, we have got this rain pushing eastwards, but it stalls across the eastern side of england. something brighter follows into the west ahead of some more stronger winds and some rain coming into south—west england and wales. those temperatures are getting into double figures. mild air that's heading our way. everything is swinging in from the atlantic. areas of low pressure pushing across the uk. some uncertainty as we head towards the end of the week as to the strength of the low pressures and the strength of the winds. the wind will pick up. it will plough in mixed weather, rain at times, but throughout, it should be on the mild side. that's it. i will see you later. today at 5: donald trump's state visit to the uk will go ahead — despite mounting criticism of his travel ban on people from seven muslim countries. an online petition calling for the state visit to be cancelled
has now attracted 1.3 million people — but the foreign secretary says the travel ban does not affect british passport holders. we have received assurances from the us embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any british passport holder, irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport. but some mps insist mr trump's policy is a "propaganda gift" to extremists around the world. we need a prime