tv Wednesday in Parliament BBC News May 16, 2019 2:30am-3:00am BST
communciations networks against what he calls "foreign adversaries." he signed an executive order in effect barring american companies from using overseas telecoms firms believed to pose a security risk. the main target appears to be the chinese firm huawei. the governor of the us state of alabama has signed into law a controverisal bill which outlaws almost all abortions. the only exemptions are cases where the mother's life is at serious risk. kay ivey said the bill was testament to the state's belief that every life was precious. five technology giants have announced an action plan to combat violent extremist content online, following a summit in france. prime ministerjacinda ardern welcomed the plans, saying she hoped they'd lead to further changes. now on bbc news, wednesday in parliament.
hello and welcome to wednesday in parliament, as theresa may comes under fire again in a grass roots revolt. they've lost confidence in the prime minister and wish her to resign before the european elections. but the pm digs in. if everybody in the house of commons had voted alongside with the government and the majority of conservative members of parliament, we would already have left the european union. labour say her problems go beyond brexit. this country is seeing the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, while the government is in the pockets of a super—rich elite. and a leaked report on the deaths of nhs patients prompts questions to ministers. at least 19 people with learning disabilities who died had learning disabilities or down‘s syndrome given as the reason not
to resuscitate them. all that to come and more. but first, prime minister's questions. on tuesday evening, theresa may and jeremy corbyn met for an hour to discuss brexit. downing street said the talks were positive. labour were rather less effusive. but the outcome is that number 10 says mps will get a chance another chance to vote on the prime minister's brexit deal as the government brings forward the long awaited withdrawal agreement bill, in the week beginning june 3. but when it came to the penultimate pmqs before the euro elections, the labour leader left it to others to raise brexit. and for the second successive question time, theresa may faced a call to quit from her own side. for more than 20 years, i have worked with an incredible
group of conservatives. they raise money for the party, they deliver leaflets, and they knock on doors. week in and week out. this saturday, a0 of us went out campaigning for the european elections. but unfortunately, i have here a letter from those conservatives addressed to the prime minister. they say that her deal is worse than staying in the european union. that they want us to come out now on a no—deal brexit and, sir, more importantly, they have lost confidence in the prime minister and wish her to resign before the european elections. prime minister, what message do you have to say to these dedicated, and loyal conservatives? can i say to my honourable friend, i say to those members of the conservative party across the country, who campaign regularly for elections of all sorts.
we just heard about the group in redditch who succeeded in getting excellent results. all conservatives who campaign, i thank them first of all for the time and effort they put into promoting the conservative cause. secondly, i would say to conservatives up and down the country who are concerned about delivering brexit, this is a government that wants to deliver brexit and has been working to deliver brexit. sadly so far, the house of commons has not found a majority to do that. if everybody in the house of commons had voted alongside the government and the majority of conservative members of parliament, we would already have left the european union. another conservative who also wants theresa may out was suspicious about possible concessions she might make in those continuing cross pa rty talks. can the prime minister confirm that if we were to stay in a customs union and a single market, that we would have to pay billions into the european union, that we couldn't do free trade deals
around the world, and we couldn't control our own immigration? and that we will never betray the promise that we made at the last general election that we will deliver the full brexit, unlike the broken promises from the party opposite? can i say to my right honourable friend i am happy to confirm to him we do indeed remain committed, not just to delivering brexit and getting a majority to dojust that, but i can reassure him on his specific point in leaving the eu, we will end free movement, restore full control over immigration policy, open new trading opportunities around the world and end the days of sending vast payments to the eu. we will not pay for market access. he mentions the last election commitments that were made. he and i both stood on a manifesto promising to deliver the best possible deal for britain as we leave the european union, deliver a smooth and orderly brexit as we seek a new deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the european union. i am committed to those objectives and i believe have a good deal that
delivers on both of those and i am determined to deliver it. that answer raised eyebrows. it may have been designed to reassure brexiteer mps, but it also appeared to reduce the chances of a deal with labour. the snp aren't involved in those crossparty talks but want to have their say. the people of scotland are none the wiser of what is going on in these secret tory— labour talks. scotland's people, and the will of the scottish parliament, is being ignored. mr speaker, enough is enough. why is the prime minister so afraid of giving the people of scotland their say? the fact is, at the european elections next week, the people of scotland will make their voices heard, whether westminster likes it or not. next thursday, the people of scotland can vote snp to stop brexit and send a clear message that scotland will not be ignored any more.
i say to the right honourable gentlemen, he talks about the people of scotland not knowing where things stand. well, the people of scotland will know where things stand if the right honourable gentlemen and his colleagues vote for the withdrawal agreement bill and ensure that we leave the european union. and if people want to vote for a party that not only is a brexit party, but also is a party in government that can deliver brexit, they should vote conservative. some labour mps say the way to break the deadlock is through another referendum. the prime minister says that it's her deal, no deal or no exit from the eu. but we voted against her deal and we voted against no deal, for good reasons. but she's not shifted and she's out of time. will she admit now that all that's left is no exit, or will she go back to the people?
can i say to the honourable lady, she knows full well my response to the question about going back to the people. i believe the people were given the choice as to whether we should stay in the european union in 2016 in the referendum. they voted, they gave their decision, and i believe it is up to this government — notjust this government, but this house — to respect the decision that was taken when we gave — we as a parliament — gave people that choice. pmqs used to be the big crowd puller at westminster. but there were empty green benches on both sides of the commons. i don't know about you, mr speaker, but it's looking a bit threadbare over on these benches just there. maybe we should examine the reason why. the government can barely secure double figures in the opinion polls, the uk is now an international laughing stock — with her backbench just wanting her going, as does the nation. she's now going to be bringing
back her withdrawal agreement for a fourth time as her backbench queue up to say they won't support her. has the road nowjust not run out, prime minister? and for the sake of her nation, will she please just go, and let scotland go too? well, i can say to the right honourable gentlemen from his references to those of us across this house, it's obvious his charm offensive to become next speaker has already started. can i also say to him, it's in the interest of scotland that it remain part of the united kingdom and is the interest of the whole of the united kingdom that we deliver upon what people voted for in the referendum and deliver brexit? we'll have more from prime minister's questions in a moment,
but in the house of lords, the brexit secretary has said that if mps don?t vote for the withdrawal agreement bill, the pm deal is dead. speaking to a committee of peers, stephen barclay said if that happened the options were either a no—deal exit or revoking article 50, putting a stop to brexit. the withdrawal agreement bill putting the uk's divorce from the eu into law is due to be considered by mps at the beginning ofjune. the idea is that second reading will be in that week, obviously, president trump's visit as well, so that will be a interesting week. so when would mps and peers be able to see what was in the bill, given that talks between labour and the government are still going on? for my part, i am extremely keen to get that out myself because the sooner we can share that, the better. i think one of the difficulties is as the talks have been ongoing, it is quite hard to lock down the text because obviously, those discussions are still ongoing. is it clear that this last chance saloon for the withdrawal agreement in its current form? the last chance the commons will get to vote on it? i think if the house of commons does not approve that,
the barnier deal is dead in that form, and i think the house will have to then address a much more fundamental question between whether it will pursue and communicate on a no deal option, or whether it will revoke. i have been clear and i appreciate this wouldn't be the consensus with this committee, but in a choice between no deal or revoke, ifeel, and i have repeatedly said this, the issues are fundamental to our democracy, my position would look to mitigate no deal, but i have equally said out to colleagues that there are significant downsides in both scenarios. is there such a thing as a managed no deal in the sense of a jointly managed no deal? clearly, both sides can make contingencies, but some of those may be reciprocated. but is a managed no deal a real concept? stephen barclay said the position of the commission was to reject what were sometimes called "mini deals" in specific areas. but he had an example of a mini deal that had been proposed.
one of my parliamentary colleagues has tabled an amendment that passed by cross party support in the house of commons saying in the event of no deal, that parliament would seek a side deal in respect to citizens' rights. now, there has been support within europe, support in the european parliament, support in the dutch parliament to do that. that is at odds with the position that the commission has set out, so there is a debate there on that and the proof in the pudding and that would be close to the time, the commission position has been set out, colleagues say notwithstanding this is in both sides interest from therefore could you do a mini deal? some point has to come where it is decided that any of these alternative routes are not going to work and it really does become about that stark position of either sticking or twisting that we remain in the eu or we leave in the way
that the hardliners want to leave, without any kind of real negotiation relationship. at what point do you decide whether that is something you think the house is going to be capable of making a decision on, or do you decide actually, the only way to resolve something as stark as that is to go back to the people? i think people that want to argue a second referendum went to revoke and i think they should say that is their position. and actually, having a 12 month delay for a second referendum with all disruption to business owners that come from that, if their position is that when a second referendum in order to remain, it is much more honest if they just say they want to revoke and actually be clear about that. the brexit secretary, stephen barclay. you're watching wednesday in
parliament with me, david cornock. still to come, has your phone been hacked ? mps try to find out. back now to prime minister's questions, which weren't all about brexit. jeremy corbyn chose to focus on inequality and poverty. the labour leader claimed poverty levels for children and pensioners were rising, with a school in great yarmouth opening a food bank for its pupils and even the department for business establishing a food bank for its own staff in central london. theresa may sidestepped that question but said income inequality had been reduced since 2010. mr corbyn tried again. when the wealth of the richest 1,000 people in britain has increased by £50 billion in one year but there's not enough money to properly feed our children, or pay workers a decent wage, then we have failed as a society. this country is seeing the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, while the government
is in the pockets of a super—rich elite. more children in poverty, more pensioners in poverty, more people struggling to make ends meet. when is she and her government going to reverse the tax giveaways to the super—rich and make sure they pay their fair share of taxes so we can end the scandal — and it is a scandal — of inequality in modern britain? well, the right honourable gentleman talks about... in fact, as i pointed out, the top 1% are paying more in income tax today than they ever did under a labour government. but what have we seen from labour in just the past week? labour party has a plan for a system where everybody in this country would get benefits. that means hand—outs to hedge fund managers, paid for by tax hikes on working people. labour's policy — money for the rich, paid by taxes on the poor.
the prime minister. british troops and veterans will be given stronger legal protections against prosecution. the defence secretary penny mordaunt is proposing a new law that would protect them from investigation over actions on the battlefield abroad after ten years, except in "exceptional circumstances". ms mordaunt, who delivered her first major speech as defence secretary on wednesday, said it would prevent " repeated or unfair investigations", but some mps are concerned it appears the protections won't apply to alleged offences in northern ireland. last month, a former paratrooper was prosecuted for the murder of two people at a civil rights march in 1972. the defence secretary made the announcement outside the commons, to the annoyance of mps — some of whom had served in the armed forces. mr speaker, on the 31st ofjanuary,
i sought and received an assurance from the attorney general that any proposal that was brought forward to protect veterans would apply equally across the united kingdom. in fact, he said it would be plainly wrong should it not apply equally. i am therefore perturbed to read in the press — and not here in this house, but read in the press — that proposals brought forward protect veterans from our country will not apply to northern ireland. and aside from any courtesy of this house, it shows scant disregard, mr speaker, for people the length and breadth of this united kingdom who stood to protect our interests, our values and our democracy. 42 years ago, in the early hours of that morning, a brave british soldier who was from 3 company, 1st battalion grenadier guards, was abducted, or captured, by the ira. captain robert nairac
was my captain, a gentleman that, in the boxing ring, broke my nose — the first person to have done so. we still do not know what happened to him. this country owes a debt to our soldiers in northern ireland, and particularly to those that have given the utmost for their country. this pursuit of our armed forces, our veterans — 200 of them — for things originally done many, many years ago is totally unacceptable, and it must, must end forthwith. the ministry of defence has said that the suspension, known as a "derogation", would protect british troops from the kind of "persistent" legal claims that followed operations in iraq and afghanistan. now, mps have said it's "terrifying" that hackers were able to remotely install surveillance software on phones and other devices using a major vulnerability in whatsapp.
the messaging app, which is owned by facebook, said the attack targeted a "select number" of users and was orchestrated by "an advanced cyber actor". in the commons, labour described the breach as a nightmare. a dystopian world of tech—enabled total surveillance. the spyware transits malicious code via a whatsapp call. the target does not even know to answer the call, doesn't have to answer the call for the phone to be infected. according to the new york times, once the spyware is installed, it can extract everything — messages, contacts, gps location, e—mail, browser history. it can even use the phone's camera and microphone to record the user's surroundings. that's terrifying. i share the concern of all members of the house that whatsapp has announced this vulnerability and, indeed, the steps that it is taking to address it. in this instance, the national cyber security centre has acted quickly to assess the risk to uk users
and to publish guidance for our user base here in the uk. the ncsc has recommended that users protect their devices by installing updates as soon as they become available, and i would encourage any users with concerns to check the ncsc website. this massive cybersecurity breach simply underlines why we need to be part of the european institutions designed to tackle these issues. leaving, for example, the european defence agency and its policies will leave the uk substantially more vulnerable to such cyber attacks. but i'd like to ask the minister... she's asked about this, the timing of this information. this hack was discovered a month ago. so when did the company alert the government exactly, and the security services? and has her government taken any action on this? the minister said she was informed earlier this week. in relation to our membership in the european union, and the impending brexit,
as long as britain leaves with a deal — preferably the deal that has been negotiated by the prime minister — then we will have access on a far smoother basis, continued access to much of this vital information. i've just looked at the version history of the whatsapp advice, on what to update. there is no mention whatsoever about security breaches or the need to update your whatsapp messages because of security. it talks about having stickers in full—size and entering phone numbers and seeing who's on whatsapp. nothing about security. bob blackman. mps have demanded action from ministers after leaks of a review revealed 19 cases in which nhs patients in england who later died had learning disabilities or down‘s syndrome given as the reason not to resuscitate. the annual report from the learning disabilities mortality review — or leder — programme has yet to be published.
but the leak prompted an urgent question from labour's shadow minister, who described the situation as a "mess" and highlighted the backlog of cases yet to be reviewed. it appears from the leak that the review has only been able to consider a quarter of the premature deaths reported to it, leaving more than 3,000 families waiting for closure. it's those 3,000 families that we should be focusing on, and that well over a third of cases do not even have a reviewer assigned to them. this shows, as we suspected last year, that the leder programme is significantly under—resourced. she said in 8% of cases, care fell so far short of "good practise", it had impacted the patients well—being or contributed to their death. and i am going to mention this out of the leaked report. the report says that over a period of two years, at least 19 people with learning disabilities who died had learning disabilities or down‘s syndrome given as the reason not to resuscitate them. mr speaker, having a learning disability or down‘s syndrome is not a reason to put a do not resuscitate
order on a patient‘s care. does the minister agree with me that this approach, if it exists, smacks of eugenics and is completely unacceptable? and what action will she take to ensure that it does not continue? i don't intend to comment on the specifics of the leaked bits of the document. that is independent and not yet published. however, lam particularly concerned, as honourable members are, of any suggestion of doctors recording learning disability or down's syndrome as a reason for a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation — dnacpr, as they call it. people with a learning disability have exactly the same right to enjoy a meaningful life as everyone else, and the disability should never, ever be used as an acceptable reason for a do not resuscitate order. we are taking immediate steps on this, to ensure that doctors are reminded of their responsibilities and avoid any form of discrimination in this case. as for the backlog, she said that
action was being taken to tackle it. in 2018/19, nhs england invested additional £1.11 million to support the local teams to accelerate this process, as well as training 2,100 experts to carry them out. it's a very new process, mr speaker, but we are pushing forward and putting in the necessary resources to make sure that this is delivered in time. doctors should only make do not resuscitate decisions after a full discussion with their patient. it appears, in these cases — without wishing to prejudge them — that a doctor has made that decision without having had that discussion. can the minister also make it clear in her communication that the presumption should be that someone with a learning disability isjust as capable of making these difficult decisions as everyone else? we don't appear to be capable of learning the lessons that she says is necessary. and one of the problems is that people with learning disability are often under the care of people who don't actually understand,
don't have the training necessary to understand the interaction between physical health conditions and learning disability, which often happens and which is the cause of that early premature mortality. this isn't a matter of mild neglect requiring a reminder letter. this is a grave abuse of power perpetrated on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. doesn't it require disciplinary action? we're already writing to reinforce a message which should be self—evident, that this should never be a reason for a do not resuscitate. but when the report is finally published, it will come through with a very well considered recommendation as to how we do tackle this and make sure that it's tackled anyway that will ensure that this never happens in the future. caroline dineneage. before we go, there was a tribute during prime minister's questions to a hollywood star who left us earlier this week. i think, mr speaker, it would also be only right that the house of commons pays tribute to a leading hollywood icon
and campaigner for animal welfare, doris day, who passed away this week. and i'm tempted to quote some doris day songs, but i won't. all right, crack away! no, no, no. and... 0h... i do apologise, mr speaker. i've obviously started a parliamentary sing—along here. corbyn karaoke, anyone? well, que sera sera, as they say at westminster. thank you for watching. i do hope you canjoin me at the same time tomorrow for thursday in parliament. but from me, david cornock, bye for now.
hello there. the temperature peaked just shy of 26 celsius yesterday in highland scotland. it was warm for many parts but temperatures will now taper off a little bit and the reason for that is the orientation of the high pressure is drifting northwards so it allows more of an easterly breeze across the shores dragging in more cloud for the cloud has stayed away stop actually start across eastern areas, some see haar to clear as well. perhaps some showers across the western isles and then a couple from northern ireland essentially, another dry bright and warm day with hazy sunshine because more cloud is filtering in to england and wales through the day. it was more of a breeze will not temperature down some three orfour
breeze will not temperature down some three or four degrees compared to yesterday but remember the sun will be just as strong. it is not temperature dependent. come true this evening and overnight we will find that the cloud begins enough to bring splashes of rain of the north sea and into the england as we go through the night. western areas under starry skies will still see temperatures fall away but it will be milderfor eastern temperatures fall away but it will be milder for eastern areas and could hear little bank and drizzly. not a huge amount of rain, i have say, for the gardens but friday looks cloudier and windier with outbreaks of rain and the odd sharp shower eventually coming into eastern scotland but westerns:, north—west england staying largely dry but still cloudy and cool because the breeze is a little stiff by then as you can see for most parts temperatures are down on what they have been recently. as we go into the weekend we keep easterly wind. so things still look as though they will be cloudy. showers around particularly on saturday but eventually light winds in the north
but it looks as if saturday will bring more persistent rain for northern england. scotland and moving into northern ireland where it will become slow—moving showers in southern areas are not everywhere expected to get a shower but some potential downpours. fewer showers on sunday and things are warming with more sunshine in the south, still a showery picture further north. there is more as ever on the website.
welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: president trump declares a national emergency to stop us companies using any telecoms equipment from foreign companies seen as a threat. the governor of alabama signs into law a bill outlawing almost all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. the un says houthi rebels in yemen have stuck to a deal to pull out of three ports, a lifeline for a war—torn nation. and could this be the future for exporting cargo?